Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9774 comments on the Chattanoogan.com story from May 4, 2011, titled Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July. In it, Chattanoogan.com reports that:

Immunizations are one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to protect children against childhood diseases and Tennessee law requires documented immunizations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chattanoogan.com.

Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7473 May 9, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
I'm not trying to start an argument, but where does Alec Jones get his information and have you checked to see if they are legitimate Sources?
Long time Sources that have proven their truthfulnessand accuracy over a period of time...and that have been praised by Other Sources in the News and Journalism Field , are the most reliable that we have.
If other New Organizations use their Reports, then both the original source and the ones who use their reports , are all staking their reputation in the News Business on that Original Source.
I've never seen a Proven News Source, with a reputation to uphold, use any of Alec Jones' Reports in their own reporting. That's a sure sign that they don't believe them to be accurate or truthful.
Where all he gets his info I can't say, but when he points to House Resolutions, or Senate Bills, I usually go and read them for myself. He also cites directly Executive Orders, and from time to time international treaties that can be found online. As I said, his interpretations are sometimes, maybe even usually, over the top, but that's because his livelihood depends on getting listeners. I treat my other sources the same way, I don't necessarily take their word for anything; I'd rather go and find out for myself and I'll make my own mind up. Anyone that doesn't is just a mouth piece for someone else, with no voice of their own. A child can be taught to recite, but an adult has the responsibility of verifying and validating.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7474 May 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding, right?
Unlike the Conservatives who backed and still back Bush's lies that got us into a war that has lasted longer than WWII, Liberals have been all over Obama's ass on drones, Gitmo, gun control, single payer health care, etc.
Meanwhile, the Republicans give Bush a pass on the 30 something attacks on embassies under his reign but now consider Benghazzi to be "10x bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined".
Honestly, can you point to a SINGLE Conservative issue that is without hypocrisy? I'm dead serious. I've asked over and over and no one can do it.
Anti gay Republicans turn out to be gay themselves. Do any pro-gay Democrats suddenly reveal that they are actually secretly anti-gay? No.
Anti abortion Republicans drive their mistresses to abortion clinics. Do any pro-choice Democrats suddenly reveal they have kidnapped someone to keep her from getting an abortion? No.
Anti gun control Republicans won't repeal security measures around Congress to allow any citizen carrying any weapon to come inside. Do any pro-gun control Democrats ask for exceptions for armed criminals to be allowed in? Nope.
When you add it up, you'll see that on just about every issue the hypocrisy is _always_ on the side of the Conservatives.
To borrow a phrase, "You're kidding, right?"

Kermit Gosnell, Margaret Sanger {founder of Planned Parenthood}, Lyndon Baines Johnson' "Gulf of Tonkin incident" and the USS Liberty, the defense of William J. Clinton, Whitewater, and the list does go on and on.

This is not to excuse Reagan and Granada, the investigation into 9/11 was shoddy at best, and don't even get me started on Bush 41. If you don't think both sides have much to appreciate in the hypocrisy department, you're deceiving yourself.

These are just a few of the many examples I can bring against both sides, but I need to correct your terminology. Not "conservatives", the proper term is "Republicans", or "Right Wing". I try to avoid using the term Liberal because in many ways I see myself as a liberal, and a conservative. No one is all one and none of the other.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7475 May 9, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
To borrow a phrase, "You're kidding, right?"
Kermit Gosnell, Margaret Sanger {founder of Planned Parenthood}, Lyndon Baines Johnson' "Gulf of Tonkin incident" and the USS Liberty, the defense of William J. Clinton, Whitewater, and the list does go on and on.
List of WHAT?

I'm asking for hypocrisy on current political issues.

Don't give me: "Oh, in World War One some Democrat was actually of German descent."

Give me an _issue_ that displays hypocrisy on the side of Liberals. You claim that they are all hypocrites, let's have an example from the last 3-4 years.
Not "conservatives", the proper term is "Republicans", or "Right Wing". I try to avoid using the term Liberal because in many ways I see myself as a liberal, and a conservative. No one is all one and none of the other.
Sorry, but that's where you are wrong.

We MUST use the term "Conservative" and "Liberal" because when we talk about Republicans posters like to pretend that Lincoln was on their side.

The parties switch philosophical stances. The stances don't change.

Conservatives supported slavery during the Civil War just like the are anti-immigration today.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7476 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
List of WHAT?
I'm asking for hypocrisy on current political issues.
Don't give me: "Oh, in World War One some Democrat was actually of German descent."
Give me an _issue_ that displays hypocrisy on the side of Liberals. You claim that they are all hypocrites, let's have an example from the last 3-4 years.
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that's where you are wrong.
We MUST use the term "Conservative" and "Liberal" because when we talk about Republicans posters like to pretend that Lincoln was on their side.
The parties switch philosophical stances. The stances don't change.
Conservatives supported slavery during the Civil War just like the are anti-immigration today.
I'm going to assume for a moment that you are as smart as you think you are.

Stop and think, Nuggin.

Words have definitions which make them extremely slow to change in their meanings, but terms can switch meanings rather quickly. Consider how "hot" and "cool" can be synonyms.

If you control the terms people use to communicate, you control the terms people use to think, effectively controlling what and how they think.

Do you not find this a very frightening thought? Look at your own polarized attitudes, and ask yourself if you're really this closed minded. BTW you do realize that a closed mind is common in all politics, whether left, right, conservative, liberal, monarchist or anarchist?

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, imprisoned journalists that refused to support his agenda, and many more things that justify J.W. Booth's famous exclamation, "Sic Semper Tyrannous". When the War Between the States concluded the authority structure shifted from the States to the National Government {in short, the loss of State's Rights and the enslavement of all US citizens, not the freeing of the black slaves}. The much lauded "Emancipation Proclamation" was an executive order to free slaves in 2 states south of the Mason-Dixon Line, but freeing NO slaves in the North, and was written in 1862, three years after South Carolina seceded from the united States.

Take the facts of this historical event and compare that with what students are taught in school and my point about Terms vs Words should become very very clear.

I did not "claim" that all liberals were hypocrites, but I did say both parties are. There are individuals who are moral, principled, intelligent, and have real strength of character, but they are rare these days.

Finally, do you not see how you perceive as enemy those who merely express a different viewpoint? You should listen, reflect, and research before you go into a blind rage, but I suspect the conflict you show here is a reflection and we'll say no more about that.

You paint so many with such a broad brush. This is a mistake, and one you should stop making. You've no idea how much you could learn by paying attention to the bristles, or how fine the picture can become.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7477 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
Finally, do you not see how you perceive as enemy those who merely express a different viewpoint?
We're not talking about a different viewpoint. We're talking about an inconsistent combative position which harms the nation and the citizens.

Look at the recent lightbulb study.

Self described liberals and conservatives are given the same option between a $.50 old fashion lightbulb and a $1.50 energy efficient bulb. BOTH groups overwhelmingly pick the energy efficient model for it's long terms savings. Both pick what is best for their own FINANCIAL interests. REASONABLE.

However, stick a "environmentally friendly" sticker on the $1.50 bulb, and the Conservatives no longer want to buy it.

In other words, the Conservatives are making a decision which is NOT in their best financial interest _AND_ is also NOT in the best interest of the environment.

That isn't just unreasonable, that's INSANE. Literally. They are acting in a manner which harms both them and others and benefits NO ONE.

Could you find me a Liberal who talks about green energy but uses less expensive coal? Absolutely. He's making a decision with his wallet that benefits him and goes against his rhetoric. That's dickish but explainable.

What you CAN'T find me is a Liberal who will pay MORE for a product he doesn't want in order to harm his own self interest in another area.
2cents

Charlotte, NC

#7478 May 10, 2013
lol funny wrote:
I think yes shots should be mandated for the health and safety of our children. In the past 2 months children have gone over sea's and come back w/ whopping cough and mumps because those countries don't mandate or can't afford shots. I watched a program that said they did research on shots and autism they said the shots had nothing to do w/ it. I don't know if they do or not but seems to me if they did more kids would get autism especially since the shots now are the shots our parents and we got. When you decide to have children you take on their wants and needs no the government shouldn't have to pay for anybody's kids. The parents should pay for their health care, food, education, etc that's most of the problem w/ government today ppl except the government to pay for everything which is us the tax payers not the government.
There are danger to immunization. If they require your children to have them they should be required to be responsible if the shots mess them up for life. Odd the paper work when you get shots tells you they will only pay medical bills if they mess up you or your child. Not funeral or money to live on if child is messed up for life. Some are made out of bovine white blood cells. Many times they help some times they kill and cripple.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7479 May 10, 2013
2cents wrote:
<quoted text>
There are danger to immunization. If they require your children to have them they should be required to be responsible if the shots mess them up for life. Odd the paper work when you get shots tells you they will only pay medical bills if they mess up you or your child. Not funeral or money to live on if child is messed up for life. Some are made out of bovine white blood cells. Many times they help some times they kill and cripple.
There is a fund to compensate people who have a strange reaction to vaccines, however the money is not endless.

If you don't get vaccinated and your child dies from mumps, there's no money whatsoever to compensate you.

However, if you don't get vaccinated and your child infects someone other child - you should be held responsible for those damages.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7480 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about a different viewpoint. We're talking about an inconsistent combative position which harms the nation and the citizens.
Look at the recent lightbulb study.
Self described liberals and conservatives are given the same option between a $.50 old fashion lightbulb and a $1.50 energy efficient bulb. BOTH groups overwhelmingly pick the energy efficient model for it's long terms savings. Both pick what is best for their own FINANCIAL interests. REASONABLE.
However, stick a "environmentally friendly" sticker on the $1.50 bulb, and the Conservatives no longer want to buy it.
In other words, the Conservatives are making a decision which is NOT in their best financial interest _AND_ is also NOT in the best interest of the environment.
That isn't just unreasonable, that's INSANE. Literally. They are acting in a manner which harms both them and others and benefits NO ONE.
Could you find me a Liberal who talks about green energy but uses less expensive coal? Absolutely. He's making a decision with his wallet that benefits him and goes against his rhetoric. That's dickish but explainable.
What you CAN'T find me is a Liberal who will pay MORE for a product he doesn't want in order to harm his own self interest in another area.
As far as I can tell, you are consumed by your hatred which tends to make you irrational. I've tried to communicate with you rationally and intelligently.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7481 May 10, 2013
2cents wrote:
<quoted text>
There are danger to immunization. If they require your children to have them they should be required to be responsible if the shots mess them up for life. Odd the paper work when you get shots tells you they will only pay medical bills if they mess up you or your child. Not funeral or money to live on if child is messed up for life. Some are made out of bovine white blood cells. Many times they help some times they kill and cripple.
Nuggin points out that there is a fund for vaccinations gone wrong, yet the government {that set up that fund} legally requires vaccinations for children whether the parents approve or not. If you have religious grounds you may opt out, but not so much on parental rights, and if you stand up for your rights you're as good {as Nuggin has shown toward me} as a Homegrown Terrorist.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7482 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can tell, you are consumed by your hatred which tends to make you irrational. I've tried to communicate with you rationally and intelligently.
The difference between our two posts is clear.

I give examples. You just use ad homs.

You think I'm irrational because I point out that making a choice that is both against your own self interest AND against the interest of others is sociopathic behavior.

How is that observation irrational? It's not.

However, since you can't offer up a counter argument you are content to pretend you have some lofty observational post.

I've got news for you, you're about two decades behind in your little history lessons. Yes, I'm well aware of how our primary school education differs from the historical record. I'm also aware that your over simplified view does not take into account larger trends in history, nor the limited capacity of children to grasp higher level concepts.

Should we teach 3rd graders that Thanksgiving is really a holiday in which people gather to celebrate genocide?

Or that Passover is really a holiday in which people gather to celebrate infanticide?

Or that Columbus day is really a holiday in which people gather to celebrate the greatest slave trader in history?

Or, perhaps, should we bring them up to speed in a ladder of knowledge allowing them to reach whatever level they can before attempting to climb to the next.

I was on your rung. I've move further up. Someday you might as well.

Now, let's stop with the "causes of the Vietnam war" and the "North didn't want to end slavery" garbage and get back to the issue at hand.

Conservative, as a whole, do not make rational decisions. This is because they don't understand WHY they hold the positions they hold because, for the most part, they are followers who accept the views of others without question.

This is why there are an OVERWHELMING imbalance of hypocrisy on the Conservative side of the debate on ANY issue.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7483 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuggin points out that there is a fund for vaccinations gone wrong, yet the government {that set up that fund} legally requires vaccinations for children whether the parents approve or not. If you have religious grounds you may opt out, but not so much on parental rights, and if you stand up for your rights you're as good {as Nuggin has shown toward me} as a Homegrown Terrorist.
You want absolute freedom without consequence.

Vaccinating 10% of a population is useless. Vaccinating 50% of a population is useless. Vaccinating 80% of a population is useless.

Vaccination only succeeds at preventing disease by giving the disease no foothold in the society.

So, we have two options.

Require vaccination and everyone benefits.
Don't require vaccinations and the 20% of people who are irresponsible endanger the 80% who are responsible.

That SAME dynamic applies to EVERYTHING in our society.

If you were given the option to pay for your water bill or opt to not pay, you MIGHT choose to pay. However, enough people would elect to NOT pay thus the water utility would fail and everyone would lose water.

Ditto roads, fire departments, electricity, air travel, supermarkets, literally EVERYTHING in our society would fall to pieces.

If fact, if you gave the public the option to not pay taxes at all, I would guess that 50% or more would take it.

Yet if you asked those same people whether or not we should completely cut the entire military, all of social security, medicaid and medicare - virtually none of them would agree to that.

Left to their own devices people make poor decisions which negatively effect others.

Collective decision making is the BASIS of society.

You want anarchy.

Let me guess, you are a big fan of Atlas Shrugged.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7484 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
not so much on parental rights
There is no such thing as "parental rights". You do not OWN children. You don't get to endanger their lives.

Google "parents allow child to die needlessly" and see exactly how many times the courts have found in favor of their "parental rights".
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7485 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "parental rights". You do not OWN children. You don't get to endanger their lives.
Google "parents allow child to die needlessly" and see exactly how many times the courts have found in favor of their "parental rights".
I'm not "painting" you as irrational, you are. However, you may find that parents have a somewhat different point of view on "parental rights", and rightly so.
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7486 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about a different viewpoint. We're talking about an inconsistent combative position which harms the nation and the citizens.
Look at the recent lightbulb study.
Self described liberals and conservatives are given the same option between a $.50 old fashion lightbulb and a $1.50 energy efficient bulb. BOTH groups overwhelmingly pick the energy efficient model for it's long terms savings. Both pick what is best for their own FINANCIAL interests. REASONABLE.
However, stick a "environmentally friendly" sticker on the $1.50 bulb, and the Conservatives no longer want to buy it.
In other words, the Conservatives are making a decision which is NOT in their best financial interest _AND_ is also NOT in the best interest of the environment.
That isn't just unreasonable, that's INSANE. Literally. They are acting in a manner which harms both them and others and benefits NO ONE.
Could you find me a Liberal who talks about green energy but uses less expensive coal? Absolutely. He's making a decision with his wallet that benefits him and goes against his rhetoric. That's dickish but explainable.
What you CAN'T find me is a Liberal who will pay MORE for a product he doesn't want in order to harm his own self interest in another area.

And how do you dispose of your great energy efficient bulbs?
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7487 May 10, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you dispose of your great energy efficient bulbs?
Not properly, that's for sure. LOL

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7488 May 10, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you dispose of your great energy efficient bulbs?
I'm sooooo bored with you.

Let me derail you right at the start.

We get a lot of our electricity from coal.
Apart from the health and environmental impacts of harvesting coal, there's the down the line impacts from burning it which include high levels of mercury, radioactive waste and carbon emissions. All of which are detrimental.

ANY technology that reduces our overall energy usage reduces our coal usage. Any reduction on coal usage far outpaces even the most wild ass speculation about potential dangers from the ONE kind of energy efficient bulb that contains minute traces of mercury.

Given that Tenn still has a number of coal plants spewing mercury and radioactive waste all over the state, it's in your best interest to upgrade your lights. Side benefit, it costs you less.

So, of course, you aren't going to do it.

Better for you? Yes.
Better for everyone else also? Yes.
Easy to accomplish? Yes.
Conservative willing to do it? FUCK NO.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7489 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not "painting" you as irrational, you are. However, you may find that parents have a somewhat different point of view on "parental rights", and rightly so.
Not rightly so.

Do you have the right to deny your child food? Healthcare? An education? Do you have the right to beat your child? Nope.

You know why? Because your child is a citizen with rights of their own.

Your rights do not supersede the rights of the child, nor do they supersede the rights of the society as a whole.

We give you WIDE LATITUDE for f up your child for life with your religious beliefs and rampant ignorance, however when you fail it falls upon US to pay for your mistakes. Therefore, you do not have full authority to fail.

Don't like it? Move to Iran.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7490 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Not rightly so.
Do you have the right to deny your child food? Healthcare? An education? Do you have the right to beat your child? Nope.
You know why? Because your child is a citizen with rights of their own.
Your rights do not supersede the rights of the child, nor do they supersede the rights of the society as a whole.
We give you WIDE LATITUDE for f up your child for life with your religious beliefs and rampant ignorance, however when you fail it falls upon US to pay for your mistakes. Therefore, you do not have full authority to fail.
Don't like it? Move to Iran.
Why should I move? I stand for the Constitution, I think the Founding Fathers of these United States got it right, and I am not trying to manipulate and control others to comply with a tyrannical system of laws. What entitles you to remain here? Oh yeah, now I remember, I fought for your Right to remain here. I fought for your right to be a foul-mouthed, obnoxious, jerk if that's what you should choose to be. It is unfortunate that if your parents taught you any manners at all, you've chosen not to use what you were taught, but absence of one definitely indicates absence of the other.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7491 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sooooo bored with you.
Let me derail you right at the start.
We get a lot of our electricity from coal.
Apart from the health and environmental impacts of harvesting coal, there's the down the line impacts from burning it which include high levels of mercury, radioactive waste and carbon emissions. All of which are detrimental.
ANY technology that reduces our overall energy usage reduces our coal usage. Any reduction on coal usage far outpaces even the most wild ass speculation about potential dangers from the ONE kind of energy efficient bulb that contains minute traces of mercury.
Given that Tenn still has a number of coal plants spewing mercury and radioactive waste all over the state, it's in your best interest to upgrade your lights. Side benefit, it costs you less.
So, of course, you aren't going to do it.
Better for you? Yes.
Better for everyone else also? Yes.
Easy to accomplish? Yes.
Conservative willing to do it? FUCK NO.
LOL See? Exactly what I said, but golly he sure took a while to say it, didn't he? LOL
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7492 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sooooo bored with you.
Let me derail you right at the start.
We get a lot of our electricity from coal.
Apart from the health and environmental impacts of harvesting coal, there's the down the line impacts from burning it which include high levels of mercury, radioactive waste and carbon emissions. All of which are detrimental.
ANY technology that reduces our overall energy usage reduces our coal usage. Any reduction on coal usage far outpaces even the most wild ass speculation about potential dangers from the ONE kind of energy efficient bulb that contains minute traces of mercury.
Given that Tenn still has a number of coal plants spewing mercury and radioactive waste all over the state, it's in your best interest to upgrade your lights. Side benefit, it costs you less.
So, of course, you aren't going to do it.
Better for you? Yes.
Better for everyone else also? Yes.
Easy to accomplish? Yes.
Conservative willing to do it? FUCK NO.
I say old chap the United kingdom has a bit of a problem with those bloody bulbs.
The Daily Mail "We will not pick up toxic new bulbs,Councils say energy-saving lights are to dangerous for binmen"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cleveland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New Owners of Lebanon Marine Rude! 6 hr Tada 25
Mike Fulkerson at Cleveland Ford 9 hr Christ70 7
Erin Smith (Dec '15) 14 hr Yeehae 10
std (Jun '12) Dec 9 truth 21
Where do non college students go? Dec 9 Just_a_guy 1
Justice out Bowen back Dec 7 Voicing my opinion 2
Janet Harwell Dec 6 Passin thru 29

Cleveland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cleveland Mortgages