Posted on 03/01/2017 11:20:30 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the son of the late-Robert Francis "Bobby" Kennedy probably made the most shocking statement during his interview for CNN. Well, liberals will definitely be shocked, that's a sure bet.
"Donald Trump could be the greatest president in history if he wanted to, he could easily be the next Teddy Roosevelt."
Is this a clear sign of admiration or what?
"Well, I think Donald Trump can be, you know, any kind of president he wants. He’s actually — he has this extraordinary opportunity because he's coming into office less burdened by obligation than probably any president in our history with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson," Kennedy continued.
"And you know, both of them, Jackson and Trump came in, they were — people were sickened, they were outraged when Jackson came in and they thought it was the end of the world and he became a — unless you were an American-Indian, he became a very good president in defending the country against corporate power and really democratizing America in many ways."
"Trump does not have obligations, he could really be an extraordinary president."
It’s just getting better.
"You know, I think he can do anything he wants because he is not — he is not bound by ideology. He is less bound by ideology than any president probably that we've had this century."
"He said to Leonardo DiCaprio the other day that he wanted to be the next Teddy Roosevelt, and he can easily do that."
"I think he can be any kind of president he wants. I think he could be the greatest president in history if he wanted to."
This is probably the most amazing statement so far, and it's pleasing to see that it comes from such an important person.
ding, ding, ding, we have a winner
sometimes God raises up a Cyrus to aid His people
There is not, and never has been any evidence that the genetic disorder known as "autism" is in any way linked to vaccines. The "doctor" who originally published that bogus report that measles vaccine causes autism was very rightly stripped of his medical license. The report itself was extremely bad science, which should have never passed the peer-review process (especially for a highly regarded journal such as The Lancet). The "research" this "doctor" conducted was never reviewed by an ethics panel, and basically constituted dangerous and abusive procedures inflicted on toddlers. He had two financial incentives to get this bogus research published: one, he had an investment in a measles vaccine that could not compete against a combination MMR vaccine (since parents would rather have their children receive one shot than three); he had to "prove" that the MMR combo vaccine is dangerous. The other incentive is that he was in cahoots with a lawyer--if they could "prove" that the MMR vaccine causes autism, they were in a position to file millions of dollars' worth of lawsuits in the name of parents of autistic children and become fabulously rich.
Fortunately, people who are a little more knowledgeable than the peer-reviewers who did not vet this "report" properly before it was published took a hard look at it. They tried to replicate/expand on the findings, but (of course) failed to do so, since the report was bogus to begin with. Unfortunately, a lot of money was wasted on research designed to follow-through on this report, money that would have been better spent trying to understand the genetic basis of autism. That understanding is being developed now, thank goodness, but was probably delayed by that bogus "doctor" and his greed. The other unfortunate aspect is that this report, despite being flawed and fictional, gave new fuel to the anti-vax movement which continues to use it to try to scare parents out of giving life-saving vaccines to their children.
Make no mistake: the anti-vax movement is a liberal movement, invented by those with the same anti-humanity sentiments as those who push abortion and the kind of radical environmentalism that would prevent all development. They know that millions of children die of vaccine-preventable diseases every year, and want to bring those death tolls back to the US and other developed countries, where we have used vaccines to save countless millions of lives.
His record of who he supports and votes for: Kennedy endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 American presidential election, noting his strong environmental record, while also criticizing George W. Bush.[54] In an article in the June 5, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone, “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?”,[55] Kennedy comes to the conclusion that the Republican Party stole the 2004 American presidential election. Farhad Manjoo, Technology staff writer for Slate.com, has criticized Kennedy’s interpretation and methodology.[56] Kennedy responded to Manjoo’s criticisms in detail.[57]
In late 2007, Kennedy[58] and his sisters Kerry and Kathleen[59] announced that they would be endorsing Hillary Clinton.
In response to subsequent endorsements by Caroline Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and Patrick J. Kennedy for Barack Obama, Robert Jr., Kerry, and Kathleen wrote in a January 29, 2008, editorial:
“By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy, and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country.”[60]
Kennedy was also featured in an ad campaign for Clinton alongside the grandson of Cesar Chavez.[61] In October 2008, on the eTown radio program where he received their E-chievement Award and was interviewed, he cited the need to elect Barack Obama.[62]
Views on 2012 presidential election Edit
Kennedy supported the reelection of Barack Obama. Both Obama and Mitt Romney aimed to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil by continued development of domestic energy resources. Kennedy, however, believed President Obama’s and Romney’s plans were different in important ways. He thought Romney was primarily interested in helping his allies in the traditional energy industry.[63]
The autism/vaccine issue..I am very happy to see this discussed.
I agree 100%. There is a huge problem that must be addressed.
Washington will always be the greatest president.
Absolutely!
RFK Jr. is not your typical Kennedy. He’s in trouble with all sides for taking a stance on vaccines. He’s not against all vaccines; just bad ones. Waste of time to be paranoid about RFK Jr. He’s lost a lot of funds for his stances on vaccines. Big pharma is beating him up. If you like big pharma, then you probably are afraid he’s against Trump. He’s not.
Your comment is just the type of information and excellent free thinking that makes me love FreeRepublic.
We are not robots or minions, and we think freely about everything.
Thanks for that comment, and thanks for all your well expressed information and thoughts over your many years here.
No. Trump doesn’t need anyone to build him up. He’s going that all by himself. RFK Jr. is his own man and I trust him more than every Bush who luvs cnn, nbc which is all of them.
This Kennedy is a good guy. He’s his own man. He grew up without his father and he’s not part of the “crowd”. His causes cost him lots of monetary support. He’s not driven by party or money.
Teddy Roosevelt was definitely not the greatest president in history. Democrats are hedging their bets.
he is not bound by ideology. He is less bound by ideology than any president probably that we’ve had this century.”
“There is not, and never has been any evidence that the genetic disorder known as “autism” is in any way linked to vaccines.”
It has never been subject to independent investigation, but there is plenty of evidence of temporal association between vaccination and autism/Asperger’s. We parents know.
“highly regarded journal such as The Lancet”
LOL!
“Make no mistake: the anti-vax movement is a liberal movement, invented by those with the same anti-humanity sentiments as those who push abortion and the kind of radical environmentalism that would prevent all development. “
Absolute BS. Folks who question vaccines are from across the political spectrum. Homeschoolers, Christian schoolers and the Amish are part of the “liberal movement”? LOL. The best correlation with unquestioned acceptance of vaccines is that folks with the lowest education levels are the least likely to question vaccines. Folks with a college education are more likely to question. Moreover, the biggest proponents of forced vaccination are DEMOCRATS!
I remember some time ago, in another vaccine thread, that you told us that there was no aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. When called out on that (including a graphic of the vaccine insert which showed the fetal tissue) you disappeared from the conversation.
Do you derive an income from Pharma?
Do you support the elimination of conscience exemptions for vaccination?
OK, I don’t agree with Robert Kennedy, Jr., but if he does think that he will be a great president, I’ll agree with him on it, Trump will be a great president.
He has obligations to we the people, who elected him.
Trump Friend/Political Advisor Roger Stone has some interesting insights on that era.
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=702
What do you "know", exactly? A "temporal association" only means that two things happened at approximately the same time, not that one causes the other. In the case of autism, it only means that no matter at what age autism is diagnosed, a child has had a vaccination within a few months. That is because of the vaccination schedule, nothing else--no matter what happens in a young child's life, it is *always* within a few months of a vaccination.
A temporal association is significant *only* if there is a mechanism linking the two events. And in the case of vaccines, there is no mechanism--there is no plausible way by which inducing an immune response causes brain damage. If it did, we would all have severe brain damage, since we are exposed to immunogens all the time.
“highly regarded journal such as The Lancet”
LOL!
Let's see--are you laughing at the idea that The Lancet is a highly regarded journal? That only shows that you are completely unfamiliar with the world of scientific publishing. Furthermore, it raises the question of why you still seem to believe that Andrew Wakefield's fiction linking MMR vaccine and autism is credible, since it was published in a journal that you seem to think is no more reliable than The National Enquirer.
Absolute BS. Folks who question vaccines are from across the political spectrum. Homeschoolers, Christian schoolers and the Amish are part of the “liberal movement”? LOL. The best correlation with unquestioned acceptance of vaccines is that folks with the lowest education levels are the least likely to question vaccines. Folks with a college education are more likely to question. Moreover, the biggest proponents of forced vaccination are DEMOCRATS!
Read what I wrote again, carefully. I'll help you, here it is again:
“Make no mistake: the anti-vax movement is a liberal movement, invented by those with the same anti-humanity sentiments as those who push abortion and the kind of radical environmentalism that would prevent all development."
Regardless of who has fallen for anti-vax scams, the fact remains that those behind the movement still hate humanity and regard causing as many deaths as possible an important cause. This is because they consider overpopulation a grave threat to the planet, and believe that more childhood deaths equates to a lower population (it doesn't, but they believe that). In any case, if someone is urging you not to provide life-saving medical treatments to your children, you should be suspicious of *their* motives, not the motives of those offering the life-saving treatments.
BTW, the Amish do, in fact, get vaccinated.
I remember some time ago, in another vaccine thread, that you told us that there was no aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. When called out on that (including a graphic of the vaccine insert which showed the fetal tissue) you disappeared from the conversation.
I only "disappear" from conversations when I judge that the likelihood of anyone (other than the person addressed in the To: box) seeing my response is virtually nil. It can take me an hour or more to compose my response, because I actually have to fact-check to make sure that what I post is accurate. There is also the little issue that I work 50 hours or more per week, and do not have unlimited amounts of time to debunk anti-vax kookery.
That said, I have, in fact, already addressed the claim that there is fetal tissue in vaccines several times. Not that I expect you (or anyone else) to read every single one of my posts on the topic. But I will go over this again:
Vaccines are grown by infecting cell lines with the disease. The viruses are then extracted from the cell culture medium and either killed or attenuated (depending on the vaccine type) to make the vaccine. The vaccine does not contain any cell material other than the virus itself.
A cell line is an immortal population of cells that will continue to grow as long as they are fed properly and kept in a rigidly climate-controlled incubator. Although the cell lines are developed from cells taken from a live human (or animal), they are not a living human (or animal). They are only cells, which are tiny organisms that do not feel or think.
The fetal cell lines that are used in vaccine production were developed from fetuses that were murdered over 40 years ago. The cells that are currently used are not fetuses and have never been part of a fetal body. They also do not have the capability to become fetuses.
In some cases, you have the option to select a vaccine that was not produced in a fetal cell line--it is up to you to do the research to find those vaccines. But even when the only vaccine available was grown in those cell lines, the Catholic church has stated that use of the vaccines is acceptable since not using them causes grave risk to human health.
In addition, many researchers currently working on vaccine development avoid using fetal cell lines because they recognize the problems that a majority of people have with abortion.
Do you derive an income from Pharma?
Ah, the stock attempt to discredit someone because they work in an industry for which they are trained and educated. Using your logic, pilots are the last people in the world you should listen to on the topic of whether it is safe to fly in hurricanes. And you should never listen to construction engineers when trying to decide where and how to construct a building. Because, according to you, an expert who makes money applying their expert knowledge should never be consulted or trusted on the topic of their expertise. Why do you post on a conservative message board when you loathe the idea that people might profit from working in the area in which they are qualified?
Do you support the elimination of conscience exemptions for vaccination?
Since the diseases prevented by vaccines are highly communicable, absolutely. Because although you think that your decision to expose your children to potentially deadly diseases affects only your children, you are, in fact, making that decision for other people's children. Parents of children who are too young to be vaccinated or who cannot be vaccinated due to immune system disorders typically do not appreciate the fact that you are endangering their children. And children have died because of anti-vaxxers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.