Forced vaccinations in Massachusetts

1. 71

   BJCposted 13 years ago

   Freedoms are over in Massachusetts.  This video discuss how the police can force their way in a person's home without a warrant if the family hasn't been vaccinated.  The governor has said he will sign it into law.  At that point he only has to announce what he thinks is an emergency to enforce this law.
   
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHnuuIHsVHg

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      WHAT THE.....?!!

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Army Infantry Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your not alone in Massachusetts,...18 other states has signed on also. However did you know your state sheriff has more authority when it comes to enforcing these rules than Obama himself. And I'm happy to say alot of sheriffs are pulling together to make a stand against the vaccine.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zmPsNTFEWo
      
      Also up can stay up to date and learn ways to protect yourself here
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced … =246894008

      replyreport
      1. 71

         BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for informative information

         replyreport
2. 78

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   If that is the case, I'd be very worried - if I lived in Massachusetts. Why are the government so keen to enforce vaccination? It's certainly not because of the spin ... to save lives.
   
   A country run by a government that believes health care is a luxury - then tries to force free health care (of it's choosing) upon it's citizens. Odd indeed.

   replyreport
3. 71

   fortunerepposted 13 years ago

   It is all about the money, the pharmacutical companies are racking op, giving kickbacks, i am sure

   replyreport
   1. 71

      BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      sounds logical.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      nicompposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Evil nasty Big Pharma! Making all those life-saving drugs! Yuk!

      replyreport
4. 0

   A Texanposted 13 years ago

   Its about liberal fascism!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think that's the new state motto! It'll be on all the liscense plates by next year.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         They'll all be zombied out by then.

         replyreport
   2. 57

      Pr0metheusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      LOL liberal fascism... funny.   Seriously, if this is true it is a complete breach of personal rights.
      
      To all Massachusetts residents, BAIL.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Now we're talking truth.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Pr0metheusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You do realize that liberal fascism is an oxymoron, right?

         replyreport
   4. 59

      egivposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Let me give you a lesson in politics. It's not even 101, maybe more like 8th grade social studies.
      
      Communism is the political extreme on the left (liberal).
      
      Fascism is the political extreme on the right (conservative).
      
      Despite the Nazi party being called "National Socialists," they were fascist.
      
      SO, your statement, "liberal fascism" not only makes no sense, being an "oxymoron" as prometheus put it, but shows your complete ignorance on the topic. If people posting these comments don't even know what fascism is, how can anybody expect them to know anything about political policies and law? What a joke.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Pr0metheusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm pretty sure he was joking.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            egivposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               So when the governor of Massachusetts (a liberal) signs this into law what will that make him?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Very happy

                  replyreport
               2. 83

                  LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  What if the governor of Massachusetts was conservative?
                  
                  Do you folks EVER get tired of looking for conspiracy and a "liberal agenda?"

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     No. Never.

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     What conspiracy would you be referring to? This is a bad bill if you can't see that then you are part of the problem.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Did you speak out about it in 2006?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           If I had lived in MA then I would have.

                           replyreport
                        2. 0

                           A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           What are you talking about? The Patriot act? what? I spoke out about many things while Bush was President.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              You must have missed it when I posted it above.
                              
                              "In 2006, former President George Bush signed into law the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). It gives power to the Secretary of the U.S. government’s Health and Human Services department (HHS) to declare any infectious disease a “national emergency” and therefore require mandatory vaccination of the entire population. "

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Damn. What a piece of s**t he is. I didn't know about this one. I have one word for these guys who think they're going to bash their way into my home - jurisdiction.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    I don't care who signed what into law, break into my home and swine flu will be the least of your worries!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 77

                                       Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       I was signed 3 years ago and has never been used. What makes you think it'll be used now?

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Obama

                                          report
                                    2. 61

                                       Army Infantry Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Semper Fi !!!!! I feel the same way !!!! Hooah !!!

                                       report
                     2. 83

                        LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm part of the problem? I don't like your tone!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           You don't like my tone, sorry. If you are not with those who defend the 4th amendment then you are against the 4th amendment!

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Hey Tex. Blow it out your backside.
                              
                              Sure get tired of this "you is either with us or agin us" crap.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 What an intelligent comeback - Are you for the 4th or not?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 83

                                    LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    You sit there and tell me "you are with us or you are against us" and I'm going to get pissed.
                                    
                                    Don't like it? Blow it out YOUR backside.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yes, I tell you that because either that is what you believe, based on your posts, or you won't say. So I'm left with the idea that you're ok with some government thug bashing your door in for whatever reason they think is ok to do so.
                                       
                                       And lay off the insults. I haven't done anything but ask you where you stand.

                                       report
                                       1. 83

                                          LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Read back. After 9/11 a number of laws were passed that fly directly in the face of constitutional law. The same thing happened during World War II. During World War I. During the Civil War.
                                          
                                          In fact Lincoln was the only other president who suspended Habeas Corpus beside Bush.
                                          
                                          No one knows how serious this flu could become. No one. But at least 680 Americans have died from this so far this year. And 140,000 at least have it.
                                          
                                          Those numbers may seem small, but this is the very same sub-type that was the Spanish Flu and it killed hundreds of millions.

                                          report
                                          1. 61

                                             tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             That is not a valid comparison.

                                             report
                                             1. 83

                                                LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                It wasn't a comparison, but a simple statement of fact. There have only been two times since the Constitution became law that Habeas Corpus was suspended. I've named them both.

                                                report
                                                1. 61

                                                   tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   But one of them only applied to non-US citizens engaging in acts of terrorism outside of American soil and still provided an array of legal protections.

                                                   report
                              2. 0

                                 A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Thats the way it is, either you support the Constitution or you don't. If you don't then do not seek justice by using its protections.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 83

                                    LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    You mean like the writ of Habeas Corpus? Bush suspended that. Remember? That's also in the constitution...or was.
                                    
                                    And I continue to dislike your authoritarian tone. Again, blow it out your backside Tex.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Bringing up Bush to me is the same as bringing up Obama. Yes, I screamed and yelled at whoever would listen about many things Bush did, he lost me long before the 2nd term!

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          I'm glad to hear it, I have more respect for you for admitting that.

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             Bush ain't even from Texas! He's a damn yankee!

                                             report
                                             1. 83

                                                LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                Connecticut.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   That ain't Texas!

                                                   report
                                          2. 0

                                             Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             Why not admit it? Bush was a POS.

                                             report
                                             1. 83

                                                LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                He's not the only one. Jane Harmon, a democrat, was trying to float a bill that would allow the NSA to spy on Americans...here at home.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Yes, I know. That's why I ask where you stand. It has nothing to do with which party pushed this crap forward and everything to do with suspending my rights under the constitution.

                                                   report
                  3. 71

                     BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     A bad bill is a bad bill - doesn't matter who wrote it.  This was written by a democrat tho.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Did you speak out against Bush's bill in 2006 which covers the entire country, not just one state?

                        replyreport
      2. 0

         A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Anarchy is the extreme right!

         replyreport
         1. 83

            LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Wrong!
            
            Anarchy: The state of a society being without authoritarians or a governing body.
            
            It is the complete and total lack of either.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, anarchy is extreme right. The further right one gets, the less government control.

               replyreport
      3. 0

         Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Better go back to 101 egiv. Fascism is somewhere between socialism and nazism on the left.

         replyreport
   5. 63

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Properly called socialism.

      replyreport
5. 61

   tksenseiposted 13 years ago

   On a positive note, Deval is doing wonders for business
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   in New Hampshire

   replyreport
6. 67

   Michael Willisposted 13 years ago

   I saw the Youtube video. Afterwards I looked up on the internet the "Bill" in question for Facts! And I did read it all. (Long and boring, but...answers alot.)
   The bill addresses in case of a "state of emergency" caused by "diseases detrimental to the public."
   
   I saw nowhere in the bill where police will break-in or go in to a home to force H1N1 vaccinations as suggested by FOX News.
   
   
   Our rights have to be protected by the Constitution.
   If a disesase comes about that could destroy us as a Nation, you and myself included, would you be satisfied with someone walking around spreading a disease and killing people just because they claim it is their right to say no?
   
   I wouldn't.
   
   Here is the link to the Bill in question-
   http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/ … t02028.pdf

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Upon declaration by the governor that an emergency exists which is detrimental
      5 to the public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency under chapter 639 of the acts of
      6 1950, as amended, the commissioner may, during such period of emergency, take such action
      7 and incur such liabilities as he or she may consider necessary to assure the maintenance of
      8 public health and the prevention of disease. The commissioner may establish procedures to be
      9 followed during such emergency to ensure the continuation of essential public health services
      10 and the enforcement of the same.
      
      The 17th word "or" means a lot, it allows the Governor to decide what an emergency is at which time the authorities can enter your home without warrant!

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And I see that and understand that.

         replyreport
      2. 71

         BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You are correct in saying the Governor has ot decare a state of emergency to enact this - but this is still a violation of our rights.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      philip carey 61posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agree. I have a likely case, just waiting for the lab results. This is nasty stuff. I'm not down with the immunization conspiracy movement. It's irrational. I'm on quarantine now. It's not pleasant.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 83

         LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Please do let us know how you are doing!

         replyreport
   3. 61

      tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's a very 'flexible' concept in MA.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Unfortunately, our rights are being eroded.  We must be on the alert and be proactive.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Well, when you have a one party state filled with pols who don't give two craps about the constitution, the will of the people, or democracy in general things are likely to get wierd.

            replyreport
7. 61

   Army Infantry Momposted 13 years ago

   What tee's me off is that the people who are fighting and dying to protect our rights, the U.S. Military, it being forced to take these vaccines and yesterday W.H.O. (World Health Organization) Came out and said the swine flu will not be as deadly as the regular flu a lot of us get every year. Once again our Military will be used as guinea pigs. another great video that shows they cant mandate it is,..
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJgPuNAh60

   replyreport
   1. 71

      BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, my son-in-law, my daughter, and two grand-daughters are overseas and they were required to have the regular flu shot.  So this is a serious issue.  The military needs our support.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Army Infantry Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         My prayers to your loved ones over-sea's,.....

         replyreport
         1. 71

            BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks much appreciated!

            replyreport
8. 69

   mkottposted 13 years ago

   It's not mandatory all the time.  The bill was written for extreme cases where the state would have to declare a "state of emergency" and it would be enforced only during that time.  If a state declares and emergency because of a virus whether natural or man made (germ warfare) then it must be pretty bad.  I have mixed feeling about this but if you ponder the worse case scenario it makes you think.  Don't jump to conclusion because of something on Youtube. 
   
   Like I said I have mixed feelings about this but then I do not live in Massachucetts.  But there are sickos out there that would love to release an airborn pathogen that wrecks havoc on this nation.  Many thought 9/11 scenario wouldn't happen and we got caught with our pants down around our knees.  How about Katrina?  May not be a virus but it does pay to have a plan in order.
   
   Just a thought

   replyreport
   1. 83

      LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The Spanish Flu has been dubbed 1918 H1N1. It is an ancestor strain to both the "avian flu" and the current Swine Flu. No one knows how many died, because national government didn't want the rest of the world to know the numbers. Only in Spain was there any effort to track the number killed and those numbers were published. Thus the name "Spanish Flu."
      
      Much like the Swine Flu, the Spanish Flu took down young able bodied people and though babies and the elderly caught the flu the vast majority killed were otherwise considered young and healthy.
      
      At the time the world population was roughly 1.6 billion people. Of that number 500 million caught the flu (1/3 of the world population) and anywhere from 50 to 100 million died. Again the total number is hard to determine due to all the secrecy.
      
      The potential that this flu could morph into a strain similar to Spanish Flu is ever in present in the minds of those in health-sciences.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting figures. This is pre-penicillin though

         replyreport
         1. 83

            LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Penicillin kills bacteria; it won't touch a virus. That's why flu vaccines are made from a dead virus.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That makes all the difference! I guess I'm alright with authorities entering my home with out a warrant!

         replyreport
         1. 83

            LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Look you want to get sick, keel over and die from this stuff knock yourself out. Just don't take anyone else with you.
            
            There are genuine reasons for concern. A law to protect the public isn't one of them. And as Uninvited Writer stated a national law that does the same thing seems much more insidious than a state law.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               And I agree with you. But this bill says the Governor decides what an emergency is, it does not have to be about disease. What if the Patriots lose to the NY Giants at home and riots break out, is that when he will decide an emergency is taking place?

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  This is one of the powers ceded to governors now matter WHAT party they are from.
                  
                  Don't you get tired of these 'the sky is falling' scenarios? I sure as hell do.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The head of security at the World trade center kept coming up with scenarios how they could be attacked, His bosses got tired of it, things happen!

                     replyreport
               2. 67

                  Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/ … t02028.pdf
                  This Bill IS about pandemic and Disease! You will read it on the First page, First Paragraph.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I guess you don't understand the definition of "Or" Its spelled out in the first paragraph!

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        As I said Before...I do...but go ahead and twist it any way you want. You will.
                        Night folks. I will use my time more wisely than this thread.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I don't think you do, laws are written in such subtle ways that you may not grasp the importance of a single word. And,or,shall, mean things and when those laws are used to trample on your freedoms there is nothing you can do but challenge the Constitutionality of it! Do you have that kind of money?

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Okay...you want a play on a 'word."   
                              4th amendment---UNreasonable search. it is protected. Reasonable search is not!

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Reasonable is with a warrant! Its not me playing on words its the language lawmakers use, have you ever had any law classes? Have you ever read a law and couldn't understand what was actually being said? Probable cause must exist to search ones property! That is a REASONABLE search!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 67

                                    Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    To you that may be true. But the Consitution only said Unreasonable.
                                    If all searches were Unconstitutional then how do you explain the courts allowing "searches" in any traffic stop?
                                    A policeman entering a house when he hears a gunshot and someone screaming?
                                    Looks into a window and sees an adult attacking a child or other? 
                                    Oh, you would rather he take time to go to the Prosecutor, then wait on a judge to issue a warrant?
                                    Then wait for the cop to return?
                                    
                                    By your definition of the 4th amendment the cop is breaking the law of the Constitution by rushing in to save that person.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       "Searches" in a traffic stop are unconstitutional. Running in to save someone comes under the heading of "reasonable"

                                       report
                                       1. 67

                                          Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          So you agree there is a "reasonable" reason. I say the welfare of the Nation as a whole due to a deadly disease would be the same.

                                          report
                                          1. 63

                                             Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             That assumes the government knows better. Which is hardly the case.

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                Right.

                                                report
                                          2. 0

                                             Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             Of course I do. But the government has no jurisdiction to enter for this reason.

                                             report
                                    2. 0

                                       A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Having the Flu is not a crime! No a cop cannot search a vehicle during any traffic stop! The only time he may search the vehicle is if he has probable cause or permission, he can do a, inventory of the vehicle incident to lawful arrest.
                                       
                                       A policeman upon hearing a gunshot does not have carte blanch to enter a home, he must first be able to distinguish which house the shot came from and in most cases would have to get a warrant!
                                       
                                       A crime committed in the officers view does give him the right to enter and stop the crime! Again having the flu is not a crime!

                                       report
               3. 59

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Your theory regarding the Patriots could be tested this Monday morning.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Go Giants!

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     ????????????
                     
                     We're playing the Ravens tomorrow.

                     replyreport
9. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

   I'm sure Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is glad that you all agree with him that vaccinations are bad...

   replyreport
   1. 61

      tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ?????
      
      Who said vaccinations are bad?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Silly me, I thought in previous threads some had talked about how terrible they were.
         
         So, will you be having one?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry, I fail to see how that answers my question.

            replyreport
            1. 48

               PirateGirlposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               LOL !!!

               replyreport
         2. 61

            tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Who specifically said that? I didn't notice anyone until Misha just now.

            replyreport
      2. 63

         Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I did.

         replyreport
10. 77

    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    I believe the military have always been ordered to take flu shots. That is the thing when you are in the military, you can't refuse to do a lot of things.
    
    And it's nothing new...
    
    "In 2006, former President George Bush signed into law the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). It gives power to the Secretary of the U.S. government’s Health and Human Services department (HHS) to declare any infectious disease a “national emergency” and therefore require mandatory vaccination of the entire population. "

    replyreport
    1. 69

       mkottposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Republicans conveniently forget this.  They are just all over this because it was a Democratic Bill passed in a Democratic state.

       replyreport
11. 69

    lrohnerposted 13 years ago

    I'm not psychic, but I'm having a vision from the future....
    
    "Massachusetts Governor Loses 2010 Bid for Re-election"

    replyreport
    1. 61

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It goes on to say that this is a preview for 2012.

       replyreport
12. 71

    BJCposted 13 years ago

    What is amazing that people resort to infantile comments when in disagreeing. 
    Hello folks, obama has made more changes for the negative than any other president in history.  Some of you at this point are going to try to prove me wrong - don't waste your time.  The point is the bama adminstration is taking this country down a cliff, unemployment is up in more than 26 years and this surprised even the "experts" that is a fact.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Okay, I'll check back with you in a couple of years...

       replyreport
13. 71

    BJCposted 13 years ago

    In fact, everytime the liberals disagree with anyone on anything it's always with a derogatory comment.  Pretty much says it all.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That is not true...not every time. I don't resort to that.
       
       What you just said is a derogatory comment...

       replyreport
       1. 71

          BJCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Ininvited Writer, you are correct, rarely do you do use derogatory comments to others - one of the few.

          replyreport
          1. 83

             LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Hey, at least when I do I say 'rear' instead of...you know...and 'backside' instead of...you know...and well, I don't think I need to use four letter words to voice my displeasure.

             replyreport
    2. 83

       LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Forgive me. But ANYTIME someone tells me you are either with us or against us, I'm going to get pissed-off.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I never said "with us" I said the "Constitution" its bigger than you or I!

          replyreport
          1. 83

             LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I respect that document more than I can possibly express. And I do believe that a person has a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I figured you did.

                replyreport
             2. 0

                Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Ah, nice to know we're on the same page.

                replyreport
                1. 83

                   LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   See though, there's a word there that could be a game changer. "Unreasonable"
                   
                   Is it unreasonable to enforce quarantine and vaccinations in the face of a pandemic?
                   
                   And I'm just asking a question not making a determination.

                   replyreport
                   1. 63

                      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Depends on if you think government knows better. I don't.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         My hero

                         replyreport
       2. 0

          Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Why? Sometimes it can be that simple and in this case I'd say it is. No one may come into my home uninvited per my 4th amendment rights.
          
          Is it ok for some one to come into your home uninvited?

          replyreport
14. 71

    BJCposted 13 years ago

    We need to reread the constitution and reflect on what it really means.

    replyreport
15. 83

    earnestshubposted 13 years ago

    That these bills get up at all is usually a good indication of what the majority wants.
    
    Politicians make safe decisions... for themselves and their jobs.
    
    The good people of Massachusetts voted for the decision maker and will need to re-think who they voted for and why.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You really believe that? How about the Health care bill? It does not have majority support. I don't know how things are done from you're from but that is not the case here!

       replyreport
16. 67

    Michael Willisposted 13 years ago

    And this Bill in discussion is about Health of Everyone in Mass. due to a state of emergency declared for protection of a Disease outbreak. My english understanding is very well intact in reading the bill.

    replyreport
17. 0

    Madame Xposted 13 years ago

    I don't question your understanding of english. I question why you think it's ok to abridge someone's 4th amendment rights?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That is not what I am trying to say. I can see in the Bill what Mass. is trying to do. If a deadly virus outbreak occurs that could potentially affect the entire state and without a constitutional bill they could not contain the virus by waiting on someone to sue in court to not receive treatment. By the time that would end, the virus could overtake and not be stoppable. It is a worst case scenario...but I actually see them trying to protect the best interest of the entire state.  And I have no issue with that.
       If you knew someone with a disease that would kill you, your family and friends would you want them to be allowed to do that? Or would you rather see them take a shot that could protect You as well as themselves?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Ok - how about this -
          
          "FDA Approved H1N1 Vaccines Contain Ingredients Known to Cause Cancer and Death"
          
          http://vactruth.com/2009/10/02/fda-appr … and-death/

          replyreport
          1. 67

             Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             No where in the Mass bill it says they will enforce law to take H1N1 vaccinations.
             I also am leary of the H1N1 vaccination. We probably agree there.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                What? What are you talking about? Did I miss something? Isn't that the whole point of this law - that some govt thug can force his way into your home and inject you "for the good of the people"? You lost me.

                replyreport
                1. 67

                   Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Read it for yourself. I have linked to it twice on this thread.
                   It will explain itself. Not just any flu...but a deadly outbreak.

                   replyreport
             2. 0

                Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Michael, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but . . .
                
                Part of Section 2
                During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority as defined in section 1 of chapter 111 may exercise authority relative to subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (13), (14), and (15); and with the approval of the Commissioner may exercise authority relative to subparagraphs (5), (8), (9), (10), and (11):
                
                (1) to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
                
                Part of Section 5
                "Whenever the commissioner determines that the inoculation of or administration to the general public, or a subset of the general public, of any antitoxin, serum, vaccine or other analogous product is essential in the interest of the public health and that an emergency exists by reason of a shortage or threatened shortage of such product, the department may purchase, produce, take immediate possession from any source, and distribute such product under such conditions and restrictions as it may prescribe; and while such shortage exists, as determined by the commissioner may establish by written order or orders, rules and priorities for the distribution and use of any such product within the commonwealth. Whoever violates any provision of any such order shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both."
                
                
                This is from the actual bill from the link you posted. Yes, they can enter your house anytime "they" decide, and yes, they can forcibly inject you. If they decide that it's going to be H1N1 you really don't have any say in the matter. The bill specifically states  "any antitoxin, serum, vaccine or other analogous product".

                replyreport
                1. 67

                   Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   If they decide that it's going to be H1N1 Here is the real problem...you are "assuming" they will consider H1N1. So, you are not a bearer of bad news to me. And any document should be taken for the Entire context. And there are a lot of legal standards required before a State of Emergency as needed can be declared!

                   replyreport
          2. 0

             Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             replyreport
18. 67

    Michael Willisposted 13 years ago

    MadameX and ATexan...I really do have to go for now. I have enjoyed the discussion with the both of you. We can have different opinions on this and have a discussion, even if we see things differently.
    
    My ballgame I am watching is getting good and I am missing it being on here. lol
    
    See you both later on here.

    replyreport
19. 69

    Rhianni32posted 13 years ago

    This has as much of a chance of actually happening as the fear of Bush declaring marshall law to stay president past his 8 years.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       And that was actually a real fear for many.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          For many hysterical conspiracy nuts.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             And your point is? I think that is what he was saying

             replyreport
20. 0

    Madame Xposted 13 years ago

    The link doesn't work

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Michael Willisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       hmmm, I will post it again. http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/ … t02028.pdf
       
       Be back after the game.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          See how much good it did you to actually read this? I will shortly and thanks for posting that again.

          replyreport
21. 60

    hinckles komaposted 13 years ago

    Both of my children are not vaccinated. Channel 5 news is corrupt.  If they pass the law than marshal law is in affect and the dictatorship will begin. The day someone comes to my house without a warrant , world war 3 will begin.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Right. How about a scenario.
       
       News reports are that about one in three people are now infected with Swine Flu. This is worldwide. That means, of course, that one out of every three of your neighbors is carrying this around. Next, the death rate has sky-rocketed. Of the one in three infected ten out of one hundred die. Pregnant women are the most severely affected with one in four dying. There is now a real possibility that eleven million people in the United States will die of Swine Flu; most of them people between 24 and 55 years of age.
       
       Your local/national government wants to do something about this, but they can't. Any action it takes is deemed "unreasonable."
       
       All of the first paragraph is a virtual snapshot of the actual effects of the Spanish Flu of 1918, an H1N1 virus...just like Swine Flu.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          hinckles komaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              news agencies and vaccine companies are very potent corps that have gravel strong lobby groups. Therefore much info about both of their products will be bias towards the sale of a product. Its really simple.

          replyreport
          1. 83

             LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             
             
             That you want to risk your health because of misguided beliefs is one thing. That you want to risk your children's lives is another.
             
             Best of luck; you'll need it.

             replyreport
             1. 63

                Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Liam, you sound like you possess THE TRUTH

                replyreport
       2. 61

          Army Infantry Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Just a friendly update,...W.H.O. (World Health Organization) came out about 2 days ago and said the H1N1 will not be half as bad as the regular flu people get,...

          replyreport
          1. 83

             LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Link?

             replyreport
22. 60

    hinckles komaposted 13 years ago

    Liam, you sound like you possess THE TRUTH lol
    
    Misha fox five posses the truth and it passes it on to the people.
    And our children. you dig
    
    
    
    

    replyreport
23. 60

    hinckles komaposted 13 years ago

    Im glad you are well guided.
    All the best of luck to you I think you will need it more then me.
    Love all

    replyreport
24. 63

    Mishaposted 13 years ago

    LOL Nice Bush pic, never seen this one.
    
    As for the truth, it was sarcasm originated from religion forums, and I bet Liam got the message.

    replyreport
25. 74

    thranaxposted 13 years ago

    I luckily live in Massachusetts lol. I want the shot anyway, so I am not worried about anything when it comes to that!
    
    ~thranax~

    replyreport
26. 0

    Nelle Hoxieposted 13 years ago

    It's one thing to debate this when everyone is healthy and large amounts of people are not dead or very sick.
    
    As a resident of Massachusetts, I can't imagine this ever being used except under the most dire of emergencies, where you do see massive death and illness. Hospitals with no beds, doctors and nurses sick unable to care for patients, small children dying. The worst possible case.
    
    Probably long before the government acts under these conditions, most people will be clamoring for the vaccine and desperate for it.
    
    Of course we should always debate vigorously any loss of civil liberties and personal choice. And make sure that government action is a last resort.
    
    I read a poll today about who will get vaccinated and who won't. It appears to be a very emotional decision based on trust in vaccines, the government, and the pharmaceutical companies. In our family, I will get the H1N1 vaccine (I just got my "regular" flu shot yesterday.) and my husband won't. He believes he should let his immune system learn. He also believes that because of our age, we already have some built-in immunity. We are also both very healthy (I'm glad that there should be enough to go around, if he changes his mind.)

    replyreport
    1. 61

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Did you support passage of the Patriot Act?

       replyreport
27. 0

    Nelle Hoxieposted 13 years ago

    Honestly, I never really thought about it very much. I know, I know. I should've.
    
    Somehow, thinking about the flu in my community is more real to me. And because I had to make the active decision to be vaccinated it made me think about it more.
    
    I was also born at the end of the polio epidemic in the late 1950's and remember the happiness at the vaccination. So that probably affects my viewpiont as well.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Well just out of curiosity, what is your view of a virus that may kill you and an enemy that wants nothing more than to kill you? What does that suggest about 'vaccinations'?
       
       
       
       
       More importantly, will we beat the Ravens this afternoon?

       replyreport
28. 0

    Nelle Hoxieposted 13 years ago

    tksensei, this could get controversial now - I'm not a Patriot's fan. I'm pulling for the Ravens.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Why would you be pulling for the Ravens?

       replyreport
    2. 61

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       HAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAAHHAHAHhahahahaahahaaaahahahahahaaaa!!!

       replyreport
29. 83

    earnestshubposted 13 years ago

    The scary thing about pig flue is the potential for this type of virus to infect broadly and then become deadly after it has a sufficient number of hosts.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Exactly!
       
       
       
       A version without the Thimerosal (mercury) in it available. All anyone has to do is ask for it.
       
       
       Because that's how the vaccine works. The injection is a dead virus. Your body reacts to it as if it's alive. You get all the same symptoms as if you had a live case of the flu, but for a few days instead of weeks. By the time you are through reacting to the shot you have immunity.
       
       This isn't like an anti-biotic. In fact those will not work on the flu. An anti-biotic attacks bacteria, the flu is not bacteria.
       
       Instead the vaccine "teaches" your body how to fight the flu. Once you've gotten an inoculation against a strain of the flu it's highly unlikely that you'll ever get it again. Unfortunately, as ernestshub said, they mutate.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          A Texanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not against having the Flu shot matter of fact I will get one next week. I am against the government deciding what is best for me and possibly kicking in my front door to show me how right they are!

          replyreport
          1. 83

             LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Don't know what to say to that Tex, except that if you get that shot and things go to hell in a handbasket it's unlikely they'll be breaking down your door.
             
             If, that is, a government agency decides to go that far.

             replyreport
30. 0

    sarah dawkinsposted 13 years ago

    OMG this is outrageous.  I am glad that we left the states and came home (to the UK).  At least we still have a democracy with the power of choice, so we don't have to give a reason for not wanting/having any vaccination. But, if we did, there are many reasons, not least the amount of heavy metals in each vaccine that our bodies cannot metabolise out, so it sits in our organs for the duration of our lives, contributing to many diseases.

    replyreport
31. 81

    kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

    I don't know a huge amount about vaccines and why people who get the regular flu jab often complain about getting the flu a few days later. I am not a doctor or scientist or anything so I am able to imagine all sorts of stuff and some of it may not actually be possible. this said
    
    I recently watched the panorama show about the vaccination for swine flu. It described how they took the bird flu vaccination and added some of the swine flu to it so it would cover swine flu. With my fantastic imagination I envision a new bird swine flu emerging that really kicks butt!
    
    Thing is I think I have had swine flu but the authorities were not bothered to test me so I do not know for sure, either way I do not want a vaccine that is so new and not been properly tested to find out what long term side effects there might be like what happend with thyledmide  (however you spell that).

    replyreport