Friday's Thought

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Rick Perry is saying and doing all the right things in the limelight, and Hannity and Limbaugh are showing you what needs to be shown when they talk about him.

What neither of them will ever shine a light on is the fact that he ;

1) supported and pushed for a $3,000,000,000 taxpayer funded research institute championed by lance Armstrong (not so different from Obamacare - it's not free market). Eight cancer scientists resigned from this place because they said the focus was based on political and commercial gain as opposed to science.

2) tea party folks booed him on the capital steps after putting till booths all over the place and supporting a new business tax

3) signed an executive order forcing the HPV vaccination of school aged girls even if it were against their (and their parents) will. Coincidentally, his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Texas legislature went ape sh** and overturned it.

4) his Texas enterprise find has proven to be a joke, and is a nice way for them to funnel money to companies that donate directly to his campaigns. There is very little transparency, and it's "audited" by the board members. A true audit hasn't happened in a decade (up until a couple years ago). He uses his job numbers to decent this, but actually about 30% of the companies involved actually contribute to the overall job count in Texas.

The point of contention for me is that all these items are there if you dig, yet the media will keep it out of your reach - THEY ARE CHOSING THE CANDIDATES, AND WRAPOING THEM ALL NICE AND PRETTY. That's why I can't stand Hannity, Limbaugh and all the others. Either side, they are doing the same thing...

Up next is West.

No one is perfect and no one ever will be. No one will agree with 100% what you agree with. If Hannity and Rush are picking and choosing their candidates, tell me who you would like to see run for office. Who out there is the best overall person to run for president in your opinion? I'm just curious.

I didn't mean to make it seem like I was talking about Rush and Hannity's views on Perry and West, that was just an after thought. I was just talking about Hannity, O'Reilly, and Rush's take on everything in general.

[PotLikinisAhabbit]

Ron Paul

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by PotLikinisAhabbit

Ron Paul

He has many view points that I agree with but also many I dont agree with.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Just as a curiousty question. Where do you get the information on which you base your opinions of candidates or political figures? According to you all information sources are bias so how is it you come to nonbias opinions? Have you actually met and spoke with these politicians? Everyone seems to be wrong in your view so would you please tell us who is the right person and on what information you came to that conclusion.

I use all media sources, then dig into individual items and/or instances that I find compelling - whether they be positive or negative.

I'm not scared to listen to someone that I don't agree with in order to broaden my knowledge base. Anyone here read Saul Alinsky's book?

If you feel so strongly against something it's imperative to dig deep into and fully understand it. I will never for one second believe what you or any man tells no matter how popular, reputable or famous he is. My opinion and belief will be based on my research that was prompted by what you said.

If I run across something that says Rick Perry is a proponent of a $3 billion dollar research center that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for, I will begin researching that instance. Some times it turns out ok, other times the layers get peeled back further and I realize he is just another big spending Texas goober with an affinity for lining his pockets.

[Goooh]

Votesmart.org is a good place to begin for unbiased voting records and what the vote was about. The behind the seems corporate stuff comes from diligent searches throughout the web though.

I like West on fiscal issues BTW, but his defense mindset is not right in line with mine. I don't mind strengthening our Defense, but don't want to increase our offense or spending - I think we can maintain the strongest military while not invading and attacking every chance we see, and can reduce the defense budget by just eliminating waste which would include unproductive occupations and bases in about every country on the planet (companies do it all the time, increase productivity, quality and profit while reducing operating expenses/waste).

[silver_snipe]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Rick Perry is saying and doing all the right things in the limelight, and Hannity and Limbaugh are showing you what needs to be shown when they talk about him.

What neither of them will ever shine a light on is the fact that he ;

1) supported and pushed for a $3,000,000,000 taxpayer funded research institute championed by lance Armstrong (not so different from Obamacare - it's not free market). Eight cancer scientists resigned from this place because they said the focus was based on political and commercial gain as opposed to science.

2) tea party folks booed him on the capital steps after putting till booths all over the place and supporting a new business tax

3) signed an executive order forcing the HPV vaccination of school aged girls even if it were against their (and their parents) will. Coincidentally, his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Texas legislature went ape sh** and overturned it.

4) his Texas enterprise find has proven to be a joke, and is a nice way for them to funnel money to companies that donate directly to his campaigns. There is very little transparency, and it's "audited" by the board members. A true audit hasn't happened in a decade (up until a couple years ago). He uses his job numbers to decent this, but actually about 30% of the companies involved actually contribute to the overall job count in Texas.

The point of contention for me is that all these items are there if you dig, yet the media will keep it out of your reach - THEY ARE CHOSING THE CANDIDATES, AND WRAPOING THEM ALL NICE AND PRETTY. That's why I can't stand Hannity, Limbaugh and all the others. Either side, they are doing the same thing...

Up next is West.

1. How is a research insititute like obamacare? Are they forcing the citizens to buy something from a private company? Obamacare does that.
2. If one side is happy and the other is mad then the person govering is playing favorites and is not really looking out for the people. If both sides are upset cause neither got what they wanted then they are looking out for everyone. As for the actual tax cited here I don't know anything about it so whether it's right or wrong I have no opinion.
3. How is this different from the required MMR, Polio, and other immunizations required to start school? Especially since the vast majority of cervical cancer is caused by this virus and over 75% of women are exposed to it in their life time.
4. Again I know nothing of this issue and have no opinion.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Votesmart.org is a good place to begin for unbiased voting records and what the vote was about. The behind the seems corporate stuff comes from diligent searches throughout the web though.

I like West on fiscal issues BTW, but his defense mindset is not right in line with mine. I don't mind strengthening our Defense, but don't want to increase our offense or spending - I think we can maintain the strongest military while not invading and attacking every chance we see, and can reduce the defense budget by just eliminating waste which would include unproductive occupations and bases in about every country on the planet (companies do it all the time, increase productivity, quality and profit while reducing operating expenses/waste).

I do agree that there is a lot of $ wasted in our defense department. Theres a lot of $ wasted in every government department. I also agree that we need to stop invovling ground troops in all of these useless fights. I do however think that strategic air bases are a good thing. We need to bring our ground troops home to protect our borders. With pulling our troops out of conflict there should also be a very stern warning given.
We will leave you alone as long as you leave us and our strong allies alone but if you F with us we will bomb your country until there is no longer anything left alive. We kill everything.

[simplepeddler]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Name 3 things you have disagreed with Rush and Hannity on.

Are any of these guys throwing thier hat in the ring?
I "agree" with them about as much as I "agree" with Jessie Jackson.........all these guys are in the entertainment/exploiting business and not the real news business............

I wished Walter Cronkyte would be reborn

on general I am apethetic these days...........I am going to support any candidate that works to allow me to keep my guns and more of the money I make.......all the other crap is rehtoric

selfish for sure...............but honest

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by silver_snipe

1. How is a research insititute like obamacare? Are they forcing the citizens to buy something from a private company? Obamacare does that.
2. If one side is happy and the other is mad then the person govering is playing favorites and is not really looking out for the people. If both sides are upset cause neither got what they wanted then they are looking out for everyone. As for the actual tax cited here I don't know anything about it so whether it's right or wrong I have no opinion.
3. How is this different from the required MMR, Polio, and other immunizations required to start school? Especially since the vast majority of cervical cancer is caused by this virus and over 75% of women are exposed to it in their life time.
4. Again I know nothing of this issue and have no opinion.

1.) I stated that the way it was funded was just like Obama care

2) if both sides are upset then it could clearly mean the gain is to be had by the politician and his buddies

3) HPV is an STD, that means you get it from unprotected sex or passed down to you from your mother who was having unprotected sex. Routine checkups will find this well in advance of cervical cancer and can easily be eliminated... Educate yourself as a parent, educate your kid and leave the legislation and forceful nature out of something as easily prevented and/or controlled as HPV. And I don't believe the fact that his OAL was a lobbyist for Merck is such a coincidence.................

http://www.ihs.gov/healthcommunicati...uments/HPV.doc

[silver_snipe]

Originally Posted by Goooh

1.) I stated that the way it was funded was just like Obama care

2) if both sides are upset then it could clearly mean the gain is to be had by the politician and his buddies

3) HPV is an STD, that means you get it from unprotected sex or passed down to you from your mother who was having unprotected sex. Routine checkups will find this well in advance of cervical cancer and can easily be eliminated... Educate yourself as a parent, educate your kid and leave the legislation and forceful nature out of something as easily prevented and/or controlled as HPV. And I don't believe the fact that his OAL was a lobbyist for Merck is such a coincidence.................

http://www.ihs.gov/healthcommunicati...uments/HPV.doc

The pamplet you cited left some things out. Yes HPV is an STD but when you get a wart on your finger that too is HPV. The same as herpes is a STD and cold sores are herpes. Again the pamplet pointed out most people are exposed to this virus. My question boiled down is how is ordering vaccination against one disease that is easily passed around different from ordering it for another?

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by silver_snipe

1. How is a research insititute like obamacare? Are they forcing the citizens to buy something from a private company? Obamacare does that.
2. If one side is happy and the other is mad then the person govering is playing favorites and is not really looking out for the people. If both sides are upset cause neither got what they wanted then they are looking out for everyone. As for the actual tax cited here I don't know anything about it so whether it's right or wrong I have no opinion.
3. How is this different from the required MMR, Polio, and other immunizations required to start school? Especially since the vast majority of cervical cancer is caused by this virus and over 75% of women are exposed to it in their life time.
4. Again I know nothing of this issue and have no opinion.

1.) I stated that the way it was funded was just like Obama care

2) if both sides are upset then it could clearly mean the gain is to be had by the politician and his buddies

3) HPV is an STD, that means you get it from unprotected sex or passed down to you from your mother who was having unprotected sex. Routine checkups will find this well in advance of cervical cancer and can easily be eliminated... Educate yourself as a parent, educate your kid and leave the legislation and forceful nature out of something as easily prevented and/or controlled as HPV. And I don't believe the fact that his OAL was a lobbyist for Merck is such a coincidence.................

http://www.ihs.gov/healthcommunicati...uments/HPV.doc

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by silver_snipe

The pamplet you cited left some things out. Yes HPV is an STD but when you get a wart on your finger that too is HPV. The same as herpes is a STD and cold sores are herpes. Again the pamplet pointed out most people are exposed to this virus. My question boiled down is how is ordering vaccination against one disease that is easily passed around different from ordering it for another?

What are you runnin circles for? HPV on your finger in the form of a whart isn't the cause of cervical cancer, which is why the vaccination was mandated and part of your arguement (see 75% statement above).

[silver_snipe]

I'm not running in circles. I asked why is it ok to mandate vaccination for one disease and not another? Yes I cited cervical cancer as being the disease that can be mostly prevented with that vaccine but the question was why is it wrong to mandate vaccination against that disease and not wrong to mandate vaccination against other diseases? You brought up the STD part. Actually I was wrong it's 80% of women will have an HPV infection.
http://www.hu.ufsc.br/projeto_hpv/HP...20of%20age.pdf

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by silver_snipe

I'm not running in circles. I asked why is it ok to mandate vaccination for one disease and not another? Yes I cited cervical cancer as being the disease that can be mostly prevented with that vaccine but the question was why is it wrong to mandate vaccination against that disease and not wrong to mandate vaccination against other diseases? You brought up the STD part. Actually I was wrong it's 80% of women will have an HPV infection.
http://www.hu.ufsc.br/projeto_hpv/HP...20of%20age.pdf

So cervical cancer from HPV happens from a whart on a finger just like mouth sores cause vaginal herpes. Abreva is slathered on Cochise nation wide to cure heroes eh?

Come on man. We should not mandate vaccinations for a minuscule "disease" that can easily be prevented and treated THROUGH SAFE SEX AND EDUCATION.

And, never did I say it was OK to mandate any vaccination.

What's your point? Perry should be president?

[silver_snipe]

So we shouldn't vaccinate anyone now?

I didn't realize that cervical cancer was a minuscule disease.

As for preventing with just safe sex if 80% get the infection during their life then it is a bigger problem than just saying don't do that.

BTW yes it is the same virus but different strains that causes both kinds of warts.

[silver_snipe]

Now as for my point. What in your original rant about Perry proves he is out of line and is so bad?

Actually I could care less about Perry but the things you cited actually showed he was trying to lead his state and not just follow one side or the other.

[eman]

Gowdy

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by silver_snipe

Now as for my point. What in your original rant about Perry proves he is out of line and is so bad?

Actually I could care less about Perry but the things you cited actually showed he was trying to lead his state and not just follow one side or the other.

If you cannot understand where I was coming from and how these items are negative IMO then furthering a conversation with you would only entrench you more into your thought process, which is the exact opposite of what a discussion should be.

Before I go - of 80%, how many get cancer? And how many of those get cancer because they didn't smear their paps? Exactly...

[Goooh]

Michael Berry for President BTW

[duckman1911]

I love SC. What started as a beer drinking friday rant about muslims has suddenly turned to a cervical cancer debate. Didn't see that one coming.