If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   SC Governor Nikki Haley vetoes bipartisan bill to provide HPV vaccine to young students. Who cares if a few young girls die of cervical cancer if it furthers your political career, amirite?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 473
    More: Sick, HPV Vaccine, HPV, cervical cancer, vetoes  
•       •       •

3339 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 6:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



473 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-20 10:09:05 PM

GoldSpider: Lunaville: Because people like you have no compassion?

Another who would dictate my opinions for me.


I would call an individual who wished to take advantage of society without paying for it as a parasite. Parasites have a right to their opinion - but not to their parasitism. If you do not wish to be a full participant in a civilized society, leave it.
Not that you would survive five minutes if you did.
 
2012-06-20 10:10:15 PM

Lucky LaRue: Unfortunately, you are just manifesting the same problem with a snarkier tone. If you hadn't decided to clamp-down on the assumption that I am opposed to the HPV vaccine and decided it needed immediate reprisal, then you may have read further into the discussion.


STRAW-MAN! Sit down.

I do not think the SC program is a bad idea (I'd like to see it implemented for the State's uninsured). The two observations I've made over and over again in this thread come down to this: SC has limited revenue and (seemingly) unlimited problems. Is there a better way to spend $70 million that would provide more benefit to more people?

The question is answered in the link; no. Actually that's not fair, both ways, I can't prove there is nothing better for the money but that is because one cannot prove a negative. The burden is on you to find a a better cost-to-benefit item at this point, the data has been provided.

If so, then there is a strong argument (IMO) to apply the funds there. The other part of my complaint is the assumption that Governor Haley is a teabagger and, as such, wants to see our daughters dead. Both points (I think) are made better elsewhere,

Governor Haley *is* a teabagger, and she wants dead folk in the same way a manufacturer of military ammunition wants people dead. This is well-known, pretending otherwise is facile at best. But that was not what I posted, at all.

but this is like the fifth time I've addressed this kind of angry ignorance, and it's tiring..

Well if you're tired of pushing straw men down, stop puttin' 'em up in the first place.
 
2012-06-20 10:10:33 PM

GoldSpider: Mikey1969: I know, I hurt your feelings, it's tough, but please don't take your ball and go home. EVERYONE here loves you very much, and we only want what's best for you.

what_trolls_want_you_to_believe.jpg


Yeah, you're right... I couldn't give two shiats about him. In fact, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire. Of course, it's not MY fault he came on, pulled out the asshole cannon, and started blasting away.
 
2012-06-20 10:10:54 PM

jso2897: I would call an individual who wished to take advantage of society without paying for it as a parasite. Parasites have a right to their opinion - but not to their parasitism. If you do not wish to be a full participant in a civilized society, leave it.
Not that you would survive five minutes if you did.


Yet you can't seem to articulate what I believe about government-funded vaccinations. This is most amusing.
 
2012-06-20 10:12:11 PM
WhyteRaven74:Nice quote, well actually it's pretentious prattle but anyways, it doesn't do anything to address those you quoted. Being opposed to what the GOP is doing or indeed the GOP itself does not make one a socialist.

Lucky LaRue:So, what is the minimum amount government should contribute to education? to feeding the poor? at what point are we giving the destitute too much shelter? I am not trying to suggest that we aren't giving enough (and I think we are probably providing too much), but then again, I am (mostly) liberal. If you think that there is some role for the government to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, then what - in your estimation - is *enough*? Just shouting, "Get the government out of our lives and our pockets!" is meaningless libertarian rhetoric without the discussion about what level of government contribution is needed (unless you are being an absolutist about it - in that case it is just scary teabagger rhetoric, deserving of the ridicule and derision that's heaped on it).

The pure and simple purpose for which I posted Bastiat's quote (which WhyteRaven74 managed to miss so utterly), was to underscore the logical fallacy of "The GOP is against doling out cancer vaccines on the taxpayers' dime, ergo the GOP is 'Pro-Cancer.'" It was not, as such, meant to paint anyone with an accusatory brush (except, perhaps, on a purely shoe-fitting basis). It was simply a part of the original excerpt. Now, having that out of the way, do I believe in safety nets for the truly needy? Absolutely. Do I believe that net is overfilled, by a great majority, with able individuals? Yes. Do I believe our "leaders" willfully enable abuse of the system in order to maintain votes? Again, yes. The government has, for too long, inserted itself as the answer to too many "problems" and has ultimately bred, with intent, a withered & needy populace. I won't otherwise pretend to be qualified to state unequivocally where the welfare line should be drawn, except to say we're well past it, and our elected officials suffer very little genuine motivation to adjust its present coordinates.
 
2012-06-20 10:12:50 PM

The Why Not Guy: Unlike pretending "giving" and "offering" mean exactly the same thing.


keep trying bucko, one of these shiatballs will stick one day. It's just not gonna be today. Probably not tomorrow either.

Give me a break. By that I mean "force me to take a break".

The Why Not Guy: Or that the bill applied to girls only.


corrected that as a mistake on my part. Ya know, how adults handle stuff like that. Give it a shot sometime. Or keep trying to desperately score points because that makes you look awesome too.
 
2012-06-20 10:13:20 PM

gearsprocket: I agree with the governor's decision. Merck or whatever company(ies) manufacture this drug don't need another subsidy. This was tried with Gov. Perry.

I don't want to pay for some girl's hpv vaccine either. Can her parents not save up the money over the course of a few years so their child can get the vaccine? I can't imagine this vaccine costs thousands of dollars. I can see poor white trash or minorities trying to abuse handouts though.

This also applies to other areas...ATTENTION WOMEN: I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR BIRTH CONTROL EITHER. YOU DON'T GET shiat FREE YOU DUMB coontS. SAVE THE MONEY AND PURCHASE IT YOURSELF


How in the hell does someone abuse a vaccine? Get more shots than necessary?
 
2012-06-20 10:14:36 PM
fark the economics of the issue, for the moment. As well, fark the moralizing, the hand-wringing, and the health care debate that has sucked so many people in tho the debate.

all I can see from my position is diseases are bad, cancer is farking terrible. Why the fark would anyone ever rationally argue that we should just let some of it off with a warning, because we don't like one of the ways it can be contacted.

Jesus, I am just glad you don't get polio or smallpox from farking, or I am sure we would be squabbling over the cost of those vaccinations too...
 
2012-06-20 10:14:47 PM

GoldSpider: jso2897: I would call an individual who wished to take advantage of society without paying for it as a parasite. Parasites have a right to their opinion - but not to their parasitism. If you do not wish to be a full participant in a civilized society, leave it.
Not that you would survive five minutes if you did.

Yet you can't seem to articulate what I believe about government-funded vaccinations. This is most amusing.


I'll take your irrelevant gibberish as an acknowledgment of failure.
 
2012-06-20 10:15:27 PM

skullkrusher: spin spin spin spin spin


a. I offered Joe $10.
b. I gave Joe $10.

The meaning of those statements isn't identical.

corrected that as a mistake on my part.

After you were called on it. Big deal.
 
2012-06-20 10:16:09 PM

Karac: And actually, coming up with another $70 million in taxes wouldn't be hard for this state. Vehicle sales taxes are capped at $300. Buy a $3000 used POS, and you'll pay $300 sales tax. Buy a brand spanking new learjet, and you'll pay .... $300 sales tax.


Tax caps are such bullshiat. "Hey! Let's specifically cut taxes on luxury goods and shiat rich people are going to buy!" How the fark does that pass? Oh right, Republicans.
 
2012-06-20 10:19:02 PM

TheBigJerk: The question is answered in the link; no. Actually that's not fair, both ways, I can't prove there is nothing better for the money but that is because one cannot prove a negative. The burden is on you to find a a better cost-to-benefit item at this point, the data has been provided.


There's no negative to prove (or disprove) here.. If we can quantify the cost of saving a life with the HPV vaccine, then we can do the same with (for example) the Flu vaccine. Or more police to enforce seat belt laws, or.. the list goes on. Once you have that information quantified, it becomes a comparison issue. I am not sure if you are willfully ignoring the point or if you just missed it: I am not against the proposed SC HPV program.

TheBigJerk: Governor Haley *is* a teabagger, and she wants dead folk in the same way a manufacturer of military ammunition wants people dead. This is well-known, pretending otherwise is facile at best. But that was not what I posted, at all.


If you really think that teabaggers are evil to the point where they use the bodies of children as the foundation for their policies, then you are part of the problem. Are the teabaggers retarded? Hell yes, they are, but you don't further a solution by labeling them so harshly.
 
2012-06-20 10:19:47 PM

fouronine: Do I believe that net is overfilled, by a great majority, with able individuals? Yes. Do I believe our "leaders" willfully enable abuse of the system in order to maintain votes? Again, yes.


www.knowing-jesus.com
 
2012-06-20 10:20:12 PM

The Why Not Guy: a. I offered Joe $10.
b. I gave Joe $10.

The meaning of those statements isn't identical.


identical, no. Does b) imply that Joe didn't have the choice to opt out of receiving the $10? Of course not. Holy crap you love embarrassing yourself.

The Why Not Guy: After you were called on it. Big deal.


yeah, if I hadn't been corrected on it by WR I'd probably still be mistaken in my belief. That's usually how standing corrected works. Keep trying.

I can't imagine what falling on your face all the time like this would be in real life. I hope there's a significant other in the picture and his name is The Because What You're About To Say Is Really Stupid Guy.
 
2012-06-20 10:21:34 PM

skullkrusher: making it available for all kids. As in, all kids would be given it at a cost to SC taxpayers when virtually every kid is already covered either by private insurance or the federal government.


You no comprehend reading?

Making something available to all kids is NOT equal to "giving it to all kids at a cost to the taxpayers". What it IS equal to is "kids whose parents DON'T have the needed insurance coverage will be able to get it at a cost to taxpayers". Since you already said that " virtually every kid is already covered either by private insurance or the federal government", that leaves very few kids, very little cost, and very manufactured faux outrage.

2 for effort

-2 for execution
 
2012-06-20 10:24:17 PM
intelligent comment below
Lunaville
jso2897


See, the embarrassing flaw with people who presume to know what other people think is that they are incapable of listening.

I happen to believe that government-funded vaccinations are a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars, as they have a high potential benefit for a relatively small investment.

However to dismiss the fiscal implications of providing a given service to the point where even bringing up the subjects earns immediate outbursts of uncontrolled rage and vitriol demonstrates how unprepared certain people are for grown-up conversation.
 
2012-06-20 10:26:00 PM

skullkrusher: The Why Not Guy: a. I offered Joe $10.
b. I gave Joe $10.

The meaning of those statements isn't identical.

identical, no. Does b) imply that Joe didn't have the choice to opt out of receiving the $10? Of course not. Holy crap you love embarrassing yourself.


The definition of offered/gave used in the bill would seem to imply that Joe would have a choice to opt out since that provision was added because that was the problem Haley had with with previous version. What exactly are you biatching about here?
 
2012-06-20 10:29:36 PM

fouronine: WhyteRaven74:Nice quote, well actually it's pretentious prattle but anyways, it doesn't do anything to address those you quoted. Being opposed to what the GOP is doing or indeed the GOP itself does not make one a socialist.

Lucky LaRue:So, what is the minimum amount government should contribute to education? to feeding the poor? at what point are we giving the destitute too much shelter? I am not trying to suggest that we aren't giving enough (and I think we are probably providing too much), but then again, I am (mostly) liberal. If you think that there is some role for the government to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, then what - in your estimation - is *enough*? Just shouting, "Get the government out of our lives and our pockets!" is meaningless libertarian rhetoric without the discussion about what level of government contribution is needed (unless you are being an absolutist about it - in that case it is just scary teabagger rhetoric, deserving of the ridicule and derision that's heaped on it).

The pure and simple purpose for which I posted Bastiat's quote (which WhyteRaven74 managed to miss so utterly), was to underscore the logical fallacy of "The GOP is against doling out cancer vaccines on the taxpayers' dime, ergo the GOP is 'Pro-Cancer.'" It was not, as such, meant to paint anyone with an accusatory brush (except, perhaps, on a purely shoe-fitting basis). It was simply a part of the original excerpt. Now, having that out of the way, do I believe in safety nets for the truly needy? Absolutely. Do I believe that net is overfilled, by a great majority, with able individuals? Yes. Do I believe our "leaders" willfully enable abuse of the system in order to maintain votes? Again, yes. The government has, for too long, inserted itself as the answer to too many "problems" and has ultimately bred, with intent, a withered & needy populace. I won't otherwise pretend to be qualified to state unequivocally where the welfare li ...


I agree in principle to what you are saying. We have (as a society) painted ourselves into an over-reliance on government support. I just haven't heard anyone articulate what the right level is and how to execute it. Well, I take that back - Paul Ryan made a good start, but I found his ideas distasteful. If the gop could flesh out the Ryan plan more, and if the democrats could find someone willing to put forth a liberal plan, maybe we'd have a starting point for a *real* debate that would have real results. I don't think Americans are dumb, and if they saw their leaders struggling with the basic question of "How do we pay for X and still have money for Y", they may not like 100% of the result, but they'd understand why the compromises were made.
 
2012-06-20 10:30:03 PM

Mikey1969: You no comprehend reading?

Making something available to all kids is NOT equal to "giving it to all kids at a cost to the taxpayers". What it IS equal to is "kids whose parents DON'T have the needed insurance coverage will be able to get it at a cost to taxpayers". Since you already said that " virtually every kid is already covered either by private insurance or the federal government", that leaves very few kids, very little cost, and very manufactured faux outrage.

2 for effort

-2 for execution


you're having a hard time I see. Pretty much every kid at this age is covered in one way or another whether via private insurance or federal program. By SC offering free vaccinations to kids, they are having the SC taxpayer pick up the tab for vaccines which were already covered elsewhere. Do you see why this is stupid for them to do?
 
2012-06-20 10:30:10 PM

doglover: What's wrong with Penn State?

It's a fine school with fine people. Wanna hate? Hate Jerry Sandusky or Grahm Spanning. Don't be an idiot who blames a university with 100+ years of history and achievements with alumni all over the globe with a handful of people who kept dark secrets.



I think he was one of the blind supporters of Sandusky and the coach and calling everyone liars about child molesting.
 
2012-06-20 10:30:52 PM

skullkrusher: the beautiful thing about that word is how it outs the user as precisely what he is trying to criticize.

/otherwise it's rather ugly and infantile



You must have your plate full here, how many alts do you have in this topic alone?
 
2012-06-20 10:31:30 PM

GoldSpider: intelligent comment below
Lunaville
jso2897

See, the embarrassing flaw with people who presume to know what other people think is that they are incapable of listening.

I happen to believe that government-funded vaccinations are a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars, as they have a high potential benefit for a relatively small investment.

However to dismiss the fiscal implications of providing a given service to the point where even bringing up the subjects earns immediate outbursts of uncontrolled rage and vitriol demonstrates how unprepared certain people are for grown-up conversation.


You say that so much better than me..
 
2012-06-20 10:31:37 PM

Karac: skullkrusher: The Why Not Guy: a. I offered Joe $10.
b. I gave Joe $10.

The meaning of those statements isn't identical.

identical, no. Does b) imply that Joe didn't have the choice to opt out of receiving the $10? Of course not. Holy crap you love embarrassing yourself.

The definition of offered/gave used in the bill would seem to imply that Joe would have a choice to opt out since that provision was added because that was the problem Haley had with with previous version. What exactly are you biatching about here?


that this is a pointless bill for SC to pass that could only result in costing the taxpayers in SC money for a vaccine that kids in South Carolina could have already gotten someone else to pay for.
 
2012-06-20 10:32:17 PM

GoldSpider: However to dismiss the fiscal implications



Ah so you're one of the bean counters who put a price tag on human life, literally.

Even more disingenuous than I thought.
 
2012-06-20 10:32:40 PM

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: the beautiful thing about that word is how it outs the user as precisely what he is trying to criticize.

/otherwise it's rather ugly and infantile


You must have your plate full here, how many alts do you have in this topic alone?


have you ever seen a smart, respectable person use the word "tard"? Honestly?
 
2012-06-20 10:36:03 PM

intelligent comment below: Ah so you're one of the bean counters who put a price tag on human life, literally.


And you're living in a fantasy world where things don't cost money.
 
2012-06-20 10:37:55 PM

skullkrusher: have you ever seen a smart, respectable person use the word "tard"? Honestly?



Have you ever seen a smart, respectable person not capitalize the first word in a sentence?

I call a spade a spade, don't get upset when you and your trolling buddies get their ignorance called out.
 
2012-06-20 10:38:23 PM

intelligent comment below: GoldSpider: However to dismiss the fiscal implications


Ah so you're one of the bean counters who put a price tag on human life, literally.

Even more disingenuous than I thought.


Evaluating how best to distribute public capital to ensure the greatest public good may be calculating and (to a liberal point of view) even "cold", but it is not disingenuous. Distorting someone's words with out-of-context misquoting like you've done here.. now THAT'S disingenuous..
 
2012-06-20 10:38:46 PM

skullkrusher: you're having a hard time I see. Pretty much every kid at this age is covered in one way or another whether via private insurance or federal program. By SC offering free vaccinations to kids, they are having the SC taxpayer pick up the tab for vaccines which were already covered elsewhere. Do you see why this is stupid for them to do?


Pretty much every kid being covered would seem to indicate that there are in fact, kids who are not already covered. But I suppose if some twelve year old's parent's make too much to get medicaid, and too little to get private insurance then well ... fark 'em.

OK, not literally, you might catch something.
 
2012-06-20 10:39:07 PM

GoldSpider: And you're living in a fantasy world where things don't cost money.



You know what costs money? Treating cancer.

What next? Stop forcing us to get polio and other vaccines as babies because you're worried about all the tax dollars STOLEN from you?
 
2012-06-20 10:40:43 PM

Lucky LaRue: Evaluating how best to distribute public capital to ensure the greatest public good may be calculating and (to a liberal point of view) even "cold", but it is not disingenuous. Distorting someone's words with out-of-context misquoting like you've done here.. now THAT'S disingenuous..



What did you "evaluate" exactly?

Did you ever factor in the cost of, you know, cancer treatments, loss of life, etc?

No, you used bad math to try and say how economically crippling it would be to provide a vaccine to children.

But don't call you a disingenuous troll.

Tell me one truth though, what was your last trolling alt? My guess is MeinRS6.
 
2012-06-20 10:41:09 PM

skullkrusher: you're having a hard time I see. Pretty much every kid at this age is covered in one way or another whether via private insurance or federal program. By SC offering free vaccinations to kids, they are having the SC taxpayer pick up the tab for vaccines which were already covered elsewhere. Do you see why this is stupid for them to do?


No, you're the one having the hard time. "Pretty much" every kid, and "virtually" every kid is NOT every kid, so the ones who aren't part of "virtually" and Pretty much" would now be covered.

See how that works?

No?
 
2012-06-20 10:44:50 PM

intelligent comment below: What next? Stop forcing us to get polio and other vaccines as babies because you're worried about all the tax dollars STOLEN from you?


I guess you didn't couldn't read the part where I said public funding for vaccinations was an appropriate use of tax dollars.
 
2012-06-20 10:45:47 PM
This shouldn't pass. It's government waste sponsored by a drug company expecting to make a huge profit off of it. Also, HPV is really very common and you're unlikely to develop cancer from it. I can understand if it was some contagious airborne thing like whooping cough, but it's not. If someone want the vaccine, they can certainly pay for it themselves.
 
2012-06-20 10:47:30 PM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: you're having a hard time I see. Pretty much every kid at this age is covered in one way or another whether via private insurance or federal program. By SC offering free vaccinations to kids, they are having the SC taxpayer pick up the tab for vaccines which were already covered elsewhere. Do you see why this is stupid for them to do?

No, you're the one having the hard time. "Pretty much" every kid, and "virtually" every kid is NOT every kid, so the ones who aren't part of "virtually" and Pretty much" would now be covered.

See how that works?

No?


I can't think of a situation where a kid is not covered by either private insurance, VFC or other federal program, can you? However, if you offer the vaccine to all kids in 7th grade, then pretty much all kids (without kooky religious/Bachmann-Maher-McCarthy hangups about it) will take the vaccine for free, don't you think?
 
2012-06-20 10:48:48 PM

intelligent comment below: Have you ever seen a smart, respectable person not capitalize the first word in a sentence?


yes i have

intelligent comment below: I call a spade a spade, don't get upset when you and your trolling buddies get their ignorance called out.


quoth the "man" who uses the word "tard".
 
2012-06-20 10:51:57 PM

Karac: Pretty much every kid being covered would seem to indicate that there are in fact, kids who are not already covered. But I suppose if some twelve year old's parent's make too much to get medicaid, and too little to get private insurance then well ... fark 'em.


the uninsured are covered
 
2012-06-20 10:52:20 PM

GoldSpider: I guess you didn't couldn't read the part where I said public funding for vaccinations was an appropriate use of tax dollars.



You mean now that all the other libertarian trolls had their anti-vaccine arguments destroyed, you tried to take the middle ground here and still fail at that?


skullkrusher: quoth the "man" who uses the word "tard".


Yes of course, someone who uses a word that you don't like is obviously an idiot. I bow to you, King of Trolls.
 
2012-06-20 10:54:05 PM

GoldSpider: I happen to believe that government-funded vaccinations are a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars, as they have a high potential benefit for a relatively small investment.


Have you asked your elected representatives to provide free flu shots for everyone, that would do much more to reduce morbidity and mortality in any population examined than Gardasil would.

If you haven't then you are just pontificating.

Sure both are good things for appropriate patients, but the government need not fund them with our tax money.
 
2012-06-20 10:54:43 PM

skullkrusher: However, if you offer the vaccine to all kids in 7th grade, then pretty much all kids (without kooky religious/Bachmann-Maher-McCarthy hangups about it) will take the vaccine for free, don't you think?


No, I don't think that at all. Use flu shots as an example. Non-profit clinics and government agencies often offer free flu shots. Some people take advantage of the offer. Others go to their pharmacy/drug store and pay a fee for their flu shot. Still others go to their primary care provider. The fact that flu shots are offered at a specific location - even for free - doesn't mean that everyone in that area will decide to get their flu shots there.
 
2012-06-20 10:54:48 PM

intelligent comment below: Lucky LaRue: Evaluating how best to distribute public capital to ensure the greatest public good may be calculating and (to a liberal point of view) even "cold", but it is not disingenuous. Distorting someone's words with out-of-context misquoting like you've done here.. now THAT'S disingenuous..


What did you "evaluate" exactly?

Did you ever factor in the cost of, you know, cancer treatments, loss of life, etc?

No, you used bad math to try and say how economically crippling it would be to provide a vaccine to children.

But don't call you a disingenuous troll.

Tell me one truth though, what was your last trolling alt? My guess is MeinRS6.


I honestly lost count of the number of pivots you just made trying to evade the point.
 
2012-06-20 10:55:21 PM

TheLalagah: If someone want the vaccine, they can certainly pay for it themselves.


But what about the children?

Oh, if we're thinking about the children shouldn't all childhood immunizations be paid for with tax money?
 
2012-06-20 10:57:14 PM
... then again, if she did not get HPV while sucking her way to become a Governor, may be girls don't need it.
 
2012-06-20 11:00:48 PM

intelligent comment below: Yes of course, someone who uses a word that you don't like is obviously an idiot. I bow to you, King of Trolls.


that's not the only reason you're obviously an idiot. Just one of many.
 
2012-06-20 11:01:11 PM

intelligent comment below: doglover: What's wrong with Penn State?

It's a fine school with fine people. Wanna hate? Hate Jerry Sandusky or Grahm Spanning. Don't be an idiot who blames a university with 100+ years of history and achievements with alumni all over the globe with a handful of people who kept dark secrets.


I think he was one of the blind supporters of Sandusky and the coach and calling everyone liars about child molesting.


The Coach?

Joe Pa. His name was Joe Pa, and this scandal killed him. And from everything I've heard, he just wanted to play football. A great man laid low through bad choices. Sandusky's the bad guy.

And none of this is the issue at hand, which is South Carolina trying to maximize their limited budget's effectiveness.

Free vaccinations seems like a frivolous pursuit. Cervical cancer is bad, but compared to traffic accidents, how often does it crop up? Probably almost never. So "Let's use the State's money on roads and let people pay for their own kids." is a reasonable fiscal descision and one we'd expect from a Southern State.

Would I have vetoed a bill like this? Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. If you can't pony up enough bread to get your child vaccinated against cancer yourself, maybe you shouldn't be raising a child at all. But it's not exactly a shocker the leader of a conservative area would take a conservative approach on a bill.

In other words: "Forget it Jake. It's South Carolina."
 
2012-06-20 11:01:43 PM

intelligent comment below: You mean now that all the other libertarian trolls had their anti-vaccine arguments destroyed, you tried to take the middle ground here and still fail at that?


I get it, it's difficult for a simpleton to think in abstract terms and must rely on arguing in absolutes.
 
2012-06-20 11:04:25 PM

feckingmorons: GoldSpider: I happen to believe that government-funded vaccinations are a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars, as they have a high potential benefit for a relatively small investment.

Have you asked your elected representatives to provide free flu shots for everyone, that would do much more to reduce morbidity and mortality in any population examined than Gardasil would.

If you haven't then you are just pontificating.

Sure both are good things for appropriate patients, but the government need not fund them with our tax money.


So, then, back to the criticism I had when you presented this line of reasoning earlier (though I think I have a clearer idea of what side of the debate you are on, now): What about the people who can't afford the vaccine (Flu or HPV)? What should be the government's role in protecting its most vulnerable citizens? I am not saying your argument is wrong, but it is rather meaningless if you can't define the context. Unless, of course, your are arguing from an absolutist point of view (that is, you don't think the government should help people at all): That kind of nihilist reasoning is justifiably treated with scorn and ridicule.
 
2012-06-20 11:07:26 PM

doglover: So "Let's use the State's money on roads and let people pay for their own kids." is a reasonable fiscal descision and one we'd expect from a Southern State.


Except that Southern states also have a tendency to decide that state-sponsored religious initiatives provide a worthwhile public benefit, despite constitutional restrictions against such favoritism.
 
2012-06-20 11:14:17 PM

intelligent comment below: You mean now that all the other libertarian trolls had their anti-vaccine arguments destroyed, you tried to take the middle ground here and still fail at that?


I am assuming that you will concede that the (economic, health, educational, infrastructure, etc.al) problems we have in our country far outstrip the financial means we have at our disposal - irrespective of how high you raise taxes, and that - at some point - decisions have to be made as to how best to spend the resources that are available. After all, this has been *the* problem since men invented "government".

So, if you take that as a given, then how would you distribute the capital? Not specifically (X dollars here, Y dollars there), but in an abstract sense. The reasoning that I (and I think GoldSpider, too) am using is that you should allocate the capital to where it will be the most beneficial to society. You seem to be vehemently opposed to that idea, though. What is your alternative? Maybe if you articulate it, I can better understand your position..
 
2012-06-20 11:14:45 PM

GoldSpider: doglover: So "Let's use the State's money on roads and let people pay for their own kids." is a reasonable fiscal descision and one we'd expect from a Southern State.

Except that Southern states also have a tendency to decide that state-sponsored religious initiatives provide a worthwhile public benefit, despite constitutional restrictions against such favoritism.


Again, nothing shocking from South Carolina. I live in Japan. Japanese people have their own way of doing things. You can see scandals coming a mile away, but they still act all "Eee!? Nandakoreha!?" when obvious scandals get aired. All it takes is a dash of cynacism and tempered hope, and you won't be floored by things like this.
 
Displayed 50 of 473 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report