How do all the old timers feel about "silver stackers?"

looks more like a clown's face.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For cryin' out loud, 'nines! MORE crap from Stansberry?!?!? What a one-trick pony you are! Stansberry is a crook!

http://briandeer.com/stansberry/stansberry-research-scam-1.htm

And what do we call somebody who hawks the works of a convicted crook?

C'mon, you can say it.

@TheMont, here is where your missive misses the mark. This bird is hawking fraudulent Stansberry nonsense, and my opinion is based on a degree in economics. There IS NO EQUIVALENT, and his opinion DESERVES NO RESPECT.

 

Selling advice. Always a profitable venture.

 

Talk about one trick pony, that's your standard reply to all things that are Un-John. What do you call someone who keeps repeating the status quo script? C'mon you can say it: ba ba ba...
BTW, It's Bill Bonner's book. But if don't like that one how about this? I'm sure you can find something wrong with that or Bonner's or both.

 

Tell me, do you EVER read anything NOT from some investment scam hawker?!?!? Have you ever read a book on economics published by a reputable publishing house instead of vanity-published drivel? Bonner is a principal in the Stansberry stable, you know. Casey is another self-published windbag selling investment advice letters.

 

Oh for crying out loud grow up. Go back and read your crap. If it ain't lord John it's not legit. You even made a vanity publishing comment about my favorite. I'm very hurt.

 

Three strikes. You've proven what I couldn't. You're a rube for scam artists hawking gloom and doom garbage that no reputable publishing house will touch. There are whole sections on economics in your local Barnes and Noble. You won't find this crap there, though.

When I type "James Da" into my search engine, what automatically comes up is "James Dale Davidson scam". Speaks volumes.

 

It may be the law but that is probably because Big Pharma has the largest lobby group on Capitol Hill. It is not permitted by any article in the Constitution. Did you now that Big Pharma lobbied congress many years ago and got a law passed which prevents any lawsuits against them for any damage caused by vaccines. Why would they do that if vaccines were totally safe? Instead of industry paying out money for such claims the government set up a fund which pays instead - and it has paid a lot out over the years.

It certain has nothing to do with common sense. Common sense says that if vaccines are effective then those who have them are protected and should have no reason to be concerned if they come into contact with an unvaccinated person. That logic applied, however, is about on a par with holding up a cross to protect yourself from a silver stacker without realizing the cross is made of silver.

 

Common sense isn't up to the task here. Vaccines generally don't grant 100% immunity; they just reduce your chances of getting infected.

Now, if nearly everyone is vaccinated, the odds of an outbreak are very low -- the odds of a sick person transmitting the disease to a vaccinated person are small, and the odds of a vaccinated person encountering a sick one are small. That means that even if someone does get the disease, it's unlikely to spread.

But if enough people skip vaccination, you lose that protection. And even if you're vaccinated, if you get exposed to enough sick people, you still stand some risk of getting the disease yourself.

I know this "common good" argument rubs a lot of individualists the wrong way, but can't you see that it is in your own self-interest to get the vaccination, even if there's some small risk associated with it?

 

And now for something completely different, Kurt will re-cyle the blue puck with a yellow Crayola, thusly, making it into a green puck, but wait there's more; he will then show us the epic volume he wrote on keynesian economics which can go by other names or phrases such as: The Science of Bull Puckery, we are cronyism and communism in drag.

Was the sentence sufficiently long enough to stimulate your ever so sublime intellect?

 

People know that if they refuse vaccines, even home schooled, no medical center or clinic would outright refuse them all of the expensive and extensive services to keep them alive. If you were born before the current vaccine availability, you don't remember the classmates, that died from pneumonia, measles, polio, and a large swath of viruses and bacteria for which there was little besides hope that your little sister, big brother or grandpa wouldn't die from YOUR infection. To keep with the thread, NO amount of silver in any form, nano, salt, or bullets can protect from measles, mumps, or rubella.

 

Well, it is always a balance, isn't it? Which way is the risk greater? Each must decide that for themselves. I have a very healthy lifestyle and immune system. I prefer not to compromise that.

The majority of people lead a very unhealthy lifestyle and have a compromised immune system so they probably need protection from many of these things. I have not had any sort of illness in a long, long time. The last time I did my wife cured me of a severe bout of bronchitis in 3 days without the intervention of a physician using natural remedies. That is when I decided to take ever better care of myself than I had been doing previously. We raised our son the same way and he never missed a day of school through illness in 12 years.

So, we choose one way, and do not believe the government should be allowed to tell us what to do with our bodies. Everyone else is free to choose their own path and I am not going to try to tell they should not be allowed to.

 

By the way, the vaccine trust fund is financed by a small excise tax on vaccines and not by direct appropriation of general taxpayer funds.

 

And I'm sure you also believe the government shouldn't be allowed to tell you what to do with your children's bodies as well. So if your neighbor wants to starve his children, or treat their fevers by blood-letting, or beat them severely until they stop (or start) acting effeminate, should "the government" stay out of that as well?

 

Abuse is a completely different matter. Starving a child clearly is detrimental to the child's health. I have seen no evidence that withholding vaccines is of benefit to a child who is healthy. Problem is that the overwhelming majority are not because of the way they are raised. But no one suggests the government gets involved when kids are raised they today.

 

Your putrid ignorance overwhelms all else.

 

If one were to believe in the power of a cross to protect him from vampires and/or silver stackers (interesting combination... both blood suckers of a sort), should not said cross be of the original material? i.e. wood

 

It's a pity that "badge of honer" is such a cliche now. Because that is truly what your lame insults are.

But one thing about bureaucrats, they can aways manage to be even more lame five minutes later by alluding stackers to vampires.^ Vampires? Really? Like leeches who suck the blood of Pa. taxpayers?

 

What natural remedy should my wife have gone to when she contacted polio a week before Salk announced the vaccine, which, by the way, has virtually eradicated the disease worldwide? And spare me any garbage about her lifestyle.

 

It's very nearly impossible to convince conspiracy types to pull the curtains away.

I have a friend who believes the entire first moon landing was a made up movie production. They stick to concepts that are just patently false and want to ignore all the previous work that went into slowly building the technology and knowledge to get to and from the moon.

Same with the global economic cataclysm where only PMs are going to be valued. Actually, I think a quarter is still going to be worth a quarter and most won't care if it's PM or not. It'll still be just a quarter.