I Have Something to Say

@hartfire Same reason the Confederate flag and the swastika haven’t been...First Amendment protections.

@bijouxbroussard Hmm.
I believe liberty deserves to rank with food, water and air as a basic necessity.

But the originator of the Libertarian principal, John Stuart Mills, included a proviso - we should only be free to think, speak and act as we wish so long as it doesn't impede the equal right of others to the same.

Any act which promotes harm to others is an incitement to committing a crime, so, I my view, it should be prohibited.

@hartfire I definitely understand and agree with what you’re saying, but that’s been the reasoning behind it. It’s only been recently that the flag representing people who took up arms against the United States—and were [b]defeated[/b]—has been removed from appearing on state and capital buildings in the South.

@bijouxbroussard nor am I.

Research it or don't. Kids today get 49 doses by age 6.

MMR whistleblower Dr William Thompson shared 10k documents proving the MMR vaccine damaged black boys by over 300%.

@Peaceful Per Snopes:

What got lost in the brouhaha over Dr. Thompson’s “confession,” allegations about a “cover-up” at the CDC, and threats of whistleblower lawsuits was what should have been the main point: Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not.

On 27 August 2014, Dr. Hooker’s article published in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration that concluded “African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis” was removed from public domain due to issues of conflict of interest and the questionable validity of its methods:

“The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings.”

@bijouxbroussard Snopes is not a legitimate source. You should research who started that and who funds them.