@marbles: The vaccine industry is run on dogma, not science.

Seriously... you are off the fucking deep end. Go and look into the science of vaccines.

Or do you ignore science and instead try to ward off evil with homoeopathy?

You are truly a moron. I've tried not to say so, but you are. Your conspiracy theory videos and this retarded attack on immunisation just prove it.

Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds, if all women were to take the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures.
—American National Cancer Institute, [22]
(source)

If you're all fine with NOT trying to prevent two thirds of cervical cancer deaths based on a misguided fear of immunisations, then have at it sir, and then don't bitch when any woman you knows dies of it.

Go and look up what immunisation has done for the world, go on...

Children DIED because of the hysteria created around the MMR vaccine by the slime ball Andrew Wakefield. Children who would NOT have died did so because idiots like you made parents incorrectly fear a vaccine, so their children were not immunised, infection rates sky-rocketed, and children DIED.

I mock the fucking shit out of you because you are wrong, and your decisions put the lives of other people at risk too, not just your own. There's no two ways about it, vaccinations are a HUGE benefit to society, a HUGE life saver, a HUGE preventer of pain and suffering.

Do you use homoeopathic remedies to ward off evil do you?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.

There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.
Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.
And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:
Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).
Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source

And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source
But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.
BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

"OHHHHHHH OH!..." clap clap. clap... clap. . . .>> ^shuac:

LOL at that one guy still clapping! Awk-ward...

LOL at that one guy still clapping! Awk-ward...

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^Yogi:
You're not dealing with reality...you're thinking idyllically. You can't tell people "Don't have kids unless you have enough money" it won't work. So instead the society has to do something to make the situation better for all involved if it considers having children a positive thing for the society.You can tell people exactly that, in the same way you can tell them, "Don't buy a sports car unless you have enough money." Some idiots will do it anyway, and provoke the consequences. What you won't have is society paying billions to redeem their irresponsibility.


http://www.ehow.com/facts_5391105_average-cost-child-birth.html

sorta ranges from 7-10 thousand for just child birth

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/06/16/cost-to-raise-a-child-in-us-tops-220000.htm

so lets say 225k to raise a child as a ward of the state (this is probably a HIGHER cost that the state would actually pay as the above estimate is for a middle class upbringing but whatever)

i mean in poorer parts of the world, it only takes 400/yr to raise a child in an orphanage with the BAREST of necessities... and then see where the cost to raise 40 million orphans compares to other expenditures http://www.stand4kids.org/the-cost-of-providing-for-40-million-orphans-vs-the-cost-of-sin/

i mean seriously, they are only part of your society, why treat them any different than someone from a 3rd world nation?

now I'm sure there aren't 40 million orphans currently in the US

In the US there are approximately 500,000 children in foster care (Based on data submitted by states as of January 16, 2008) * http://abbafund.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/orphan-statistics/

according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage thats alittle over 1/2 the number of orphans (according to state of New York statistics), another 1/4 is with family, and about 1/6 is in state ward care... my math may be off, but lets say, 100,000 children on tax dollars

~ 225,000,000,000 cost per year for orphans
311,954,380 current USA population http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

or $721.26 in taxes per person per year, roughly $60/month in taxes

obviously this isn't taking into account money foster parents receive to aid with their fostering... but again, the 225,000$ estimate for the cost a state facility in regards of cost to raise a child for life is HIGH... both in regards to the fact that not all children will be in the orphanage from day 1 to adult hood, some don't become orphans until later... and how the facility itself will not be spending the same amount and a middle class family to raise the child... on the other hand, not every citizen pays their taxes or is taxable

but it is very safe to assume <$60/month as the cost to each tax paying citizen in regards to this
not $60/kid... $60/month for ALL of them

its about GREED

oh man, what a burden!

LOL. This is funny. The city of Rochester won't stand for this. I suspect Louise Slaughter will get involved.

To be fair to the cops in the original video, I spent 8 years in Rochester, and if I recognize the neighborhood, it's the one I lived in. Most people don't realize this, but Rochester isn't exactly green acres. It has a substantially higher murder rate than NYC, active gang populations, drug running, the whole nine yards. As often accompanies that sort of activity, neighborhoods such as the 19th ward, where I used to live, have a pronounced anti-cop attitude. If I were doing an arrest there, at night, I'd rather not have people snooping around. Those stoops know you by your badge number. There were multiple murders/muggings/burglaries in the neighborhood while I was there, including a drive-by my friend witnessed right up the street. I could even tell you the story about how I naively offered the "mayor of the 19th ward" (the head of the crips) a ride home. He introduced me to all his "nephs" that would proceed to hand him bigger rolls of cash than I've ever seen, brought me to the crack house up the street where the toothless dude living in a closet was "saving up for a sandwich, but would buy some bags to lick if he had any," and finally explained to me that when he called me "cool as a bitch" it was a good thing, because he fought dogs, and "ain't no dog gonna fight longer and harder for you than a pit bitch." He further explained, "if somebody says 'you gonna die bitch,' that's not the bitch you want to be." Then there was the part where he tried to offer me car parts, bulletproof vests, guns, drugs, girls, you name it.

That said, clearly there are much better uses of officer resources in that city than curb-distance parking citations.

Also, this isn't in keeping with their typical attitude surrounding activism. When the Iraq war broke out, I worked with a group of radicals organizing anti-war protests. We had protests every week on Fridays leading up to, and into the beginning of the war for months. We shut down the streets in front of the federal offices downtown with about 500-1000 people routinely, and really were pretty obnoxious to the cops in retrospect (doing things like changing our route so they couldn't keep us out of the streets, and yelling in their faces with a megaphone). While we had our own "special investigator" nothing ever really came of it. They let us say our piece, do our CD, and didn't even arrest us for it. They'd talk big, but honestly, given our attitude at the time, they could have been much less civil than they were. Although, how they treat the college kids, and how they treat the bangers in the hood at night is a different ballgame.

@1:05^^^Happy next anniversary, ya manly man ya! Always good to recall the time and 'place when the life compass 'pointed t'wards the forever fhucked direction!!

We are all wards of the corporations - and as wards, you need to do what you are told and say what you are told to say. Leaving your home and exploiting a freedom of speech clause is a common mistake - you will be dealt with.

Hitler : Catholicism :: Ward Churchill : Cherokee Indians

>> ^guymontage:

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.
I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurren
ce
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.

The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.
If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.
More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.


fantastic. i would be very happy if science could disprove this theory. but we're still looking at probability.

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.

I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurrence
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.


The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.

If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.

More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.

Apart with all the embarrassment and humility this caused. She knows she made a goof. She's embarrassed and feels foolish. So what.

Now, the video is a whole different issue. I'm not a lawyer nor will I pretend to be but this has got to raise a few eyebrows. This video turns a silly mistake into a gigantic problem.

It's the whole "Smile, you're on public camera" issue. It's a Big Brother thing.
What do the invisible people behind all these cameras do with the footage of you (a private citizen) as you go to the mall, walk in the park, fill up with gas and generally go on with your day to day activities. Why do they have the right to film everything you do? We all assume the video is logged in some sort of system and deleted down the road when not used for any reason (ie: a robbery didn't take place).

If it is deleted, we all say, "whatever, that footage wasn't used" and we move on. If it does get used to expose a crime, we say, "great, I'm glad they caught the guy - hey look there's me in the background."

But what about all the footage being misused? Posting it to youtube and being publicly humiliated on a large scale is just part of it. What about using it to stalk, invasion of privacy and many other things people can think of? Now we have to be afraid to scratch our nose in public for fear of being recorded and posted to Youtube with a caption reading "Man picks nose in public". (Ewe gross!).

The point is, regardless of the humility this woman received and then was elevated to, these companies need to take a professional outlook on this information and be held accountable.

It's like going to the Emergency ward because you got shot in the but (keeping it Disney here), and then they video tape you coming in and them removing the bullet (as part of their procedure). OK, you leave, no problem. then one day you find out the video is on Youtube. Ya, you feel dumb, and embarrassed for shooting yourself in the rump, but you sue because of the gross violation of personal medical information.

There has got to be some accountability here, if there is no policy in place, she should be able to sue the Mall. If there is a policy in place, the individual should loose his job and be found liable. If they can't find out who did it, then the Mall is responsible for not having proper security measures in place to track who had access to security information.

This kid will never be able to show his face in public ever. Uncle Ward just became a facebook Hero.

I'm a ward of the welfare state. I take tax money from hard-working Real Americans and use it to buy donuts.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'beatboxing, idol' to 'idol, michael jackson, kenny muhammad, usher, anita ward, yoshimoto' - edited by xxovercastxx