# News & Current Events > Coronavirus SARS-CoV2 >  Rand's Very Disappointing Statement On Vaccine Mandates

## BortSimpson

Disappointing by omission.  Why is he leaving out those who don't have natural immunity but still have no interest in the vaccine?  They should still be mandated to take it?!  Horrible!  We need people to stand up for the principles for individual liberty.


https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1436078871854649344

Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity ignore the science, are unscientific, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government.

----------


## PAF

As somebody stated... *The ship has sailed*.

99% of the talk, among politicians, voters, even people on this very RPF, are anxious to talk about science, alternatives, pros/cons, but fail to make the point that *"Government Has NO Business In Healthcare - Period"*.

----------


## Invisible Man

It's just a tweet though. Not a speech or article.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Disappointing by omission.  Why is he leaving out those who don't have natural immunity but still have no interest in the vaccine?  They should still be mandated to take it?!  Horrible!  We need people to stand up for the principles for individual liberty.
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1436078871854649344
> 
> Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity ignore the science, are unscientific, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government.


Tweets are short by design. It was single idea, focusing on science.

He could just as well have said (and has probably previously said) "Vaccine mandates that ignore natural rights are unconstitutional, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government." I am sure he believes that too. But it would be a separate argument against mandates, and it would not have the twist of using the "science" against them.

There is no use trying to make the liberty and individual choice arguments against the left. They already openly say "f*ck your rights". They have no problem with contradictions and hypocrisy. They are leftists and communists, and it is part of their mindset.

----------


## acptulsa

> Disappointing by omission.  Why is he leaving out those who don't have natural immunity but still have no interest in the vaccine?  They should still be mandated to take it?!  Horrible!  We need people to stand up for the principles for individual liberty.
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1436078871854649344
> 
> Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity ignore the science, are unscientific, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government.


I count 124 characters.  If you want me to consider this true statement "horrible", show me how to say everything else you're demanding that he add in sixteen letters.

----------


## BortSimpson

> I count 124 characters.  If you want me to consider this true statement "horrible", show me how to say everything else you're demanding that he add in sixteen letters.


How about**: "Vaccine mandates should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> How about**: "Vaccine mandates should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government"


He could say that, and most of us here would agree. The problem with that argument is that the pro-mandate people will say that the Supreme Court has already ruled that vaccine mandates are OK.

An argument that no one seems to be making is that COVID is not an emergency, thus no mandates are justified. The entire premise of mandates is that there is an emergency or disaster. That is false. At first, there were a lot of unknowns. It was a novel (and lab created) virus. No one knew the death rate. Hospitals and doctors did not know how to treat it.

Today, it is no longer novel. It has traveled around the world several times for almost two years. We know the death rate is similar to a flu. We know how to treat it much better. There is no emergency, and no justification for government actions.

----------


## acptulsa

> How about**: "Vaccine mandates should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government"


Sounds perfect, for preaching to the choir.

Now give me a pitch tailored for the government is god and science is gospel crowd.  It is they, not the choir, who need their heads pried out of their asses.

----------


## CaptUSA

Thomas Massie:



> Biden DOES NOT have the authority to force you to take a vaccine.
> Inserting an administrative agency & your employer in the middle changes nothing.
> This only stands if you and your employer comply with his illegal directive.



(for the record, I don't find anything objectionable in the way Rand phrased it.  We all know he's against the mandates.)

----------


## Invisible Man

Massie's tweet is also very disappointing because he failed to mention ending the Fed.

----------


## BortSimpson

> Sounds perfect, for preaching to the choir.
> 
> Now give me a pitch tailored for the government is god and science is gospel crowd.  It is they, not the choir, who need their heads pried out of their asses.


Do you think the "government is god and science is gospel" crowd are on-board with his "I don't need a mandate because I have natural immunity" comment?  These are the same people who worship Fauci.

----------


## BortSimpson

> Massie's tweet is also very disappointing because he failed to mention ending the Fed.


So you're dismissing my point?

----------


## BortSimpson

> He could say that, and most of us here would agree. The problem with that argument is that the pro-mandate people will say that the Supreme Court has already ruled that vaccine mandates are OK.
> 
> An argument that no one seems to be making is that COVID is not an emergency, thus no mandates are justified. The entire premise of mandates is that there is an emergency or disaster. That is false. At first, there were a lot of unknowns. It was a novel (and lab created) virus. No one knew the death rate. Hospitals and doctors did not know how to treat it.
> 
> Today, it is no longer novel. It has traveled around the world several times for almost two years. We know the death rate is similar to a flu. We know how to treat it much better. There is no emergency, and no justification for government actions.


I don't think we should pussyfoot around the topics.  Playing those types of games gets us nowhere.  We need someone who defends liberty.  There won't be any arguments won with people who basically believe everything they're hearing from the Fauci's of the world.

----------


## Invisible Man

> So you're dismissing my point?


Yes. You can't criticize anything he does say in his tweet. He makes a valid point that's worth making. You just criticize him for not saying something else, as if he shouldn't ever make the one point without the other, not even in a mere tweet.

----------


## BortSimpson

> Sounds perfect, for preaching to the choir.
> 
> Now give me a pitch tailored for the government is god and science is gospel crowd.  It is they, not the choir, who need their heads pried out of their asses.





> Yes. You can't criticize anything he does say in his tweet. He makes a valid point that's worth making. You just criticize him for not saying something else, as if he shouldn't ever make the one point without the other, not even in a mere tweet.


I replied above but I want to add another point.  Would you defend Rand if he commented the following about Australia:

"The Australian government shouldn't limit people who haven't taken the vaccine to 1 hour a day outside if they already have natural immunity".

----------


## Invisible Man

> I replied above but I want to add another point.  Would you defend Rand if he commented the following about Australia:
> 
> "The Australian government shouldn't limit people who haven't taken the vaccine to 1 hour a day outside if they already have natural immunity".


No, because that totally different tweet that you made up and that sounds nothing like what Rand said in the tweet in the OP, makes it sound like he would support that for people who don't have natural immunity.

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you think the "government is god and science is gospel" crowd are on-board with his "I don't need a mandate because I have natural immunity" comment?  These are the same people who worship Fauci.


I think I can't conceive of 124 characters which are _more_ likely to lance the boil of their cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.  I'm sorry you've written off half the population as incapable of outgrowing their hubris in a crisis, but I'm glad Rand Paul hasn't.




> I replied above but I want to add another point.  Would you defend Rand if he commented the following about Australia:
> 
> "The Australian government shouldn't limit people who haven't taken the vaccine to 1 hour a day outside if they already have natural immunity".


I can't put it any more succinctly than this:




> No, because that... makes it sound like he would support that for people who don't have natural immunity.

----------


## BortSimpson

> No, because that totally different tweet that you made up and that sounds nothing like what Rand said in the tweet in the OP, makes it sound like he would support that for people who don't have natural immunity.


Well that's my criticism of his original quote.  He said:

"Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity ignore the science, are unscientific, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government."

In other words, he (glaringly) left out those who haven't taken the vaccine but also don't have natural immunity (from recovering from Covid).

----------


## acptulsa

> Well that's my criticism of his original quote.  He said:
> 
> "Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity ignore the science, are unscientific, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government."
> 
> In other words, he (glaringly) left out those who haven't taken the vaccine but also don't have natural immunity (from recovering from Covid).


That's because he's focusing on the scientific hypocrisy of the government.  That, in turn, is because the government and its sycophants are using what they call science as justification to screw an entire nation.  He's attacking a false god.  He is not saying or implying that anyone should have fewer rights than anyone else.

And since natural immunity is borderline impossible to test for, those without natural immunity derive the same benefit as those who do.  So where's the complaint?

You're starting to sound like someone whose third cousin twice removed got on a game show, and didn't say hi to you on the air.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Well that's my criticism of his original quote.  He said:
> 
> "Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity ignore the science, are unscientific, and should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government."
> 
> In other words, he (glaringly) left out those who haven't taken the vaccine but also don't have natural immunity (from recovering from Covid).


One would naturally leave those people out when one is making a point that is specifically about natural immunity.

You're insisting that he shoe-horn something into his tweet that is entirely outside of the point he was making.

It's just a tweet, not a treatise on the subject.

----------


## BortSimpson

> That's because he's focusing on the scientific hypocrisy of the government.  That, in turn, is because the government and its sycophants are using what they call science as justification to screw an entire nation.  He's attacking a false god.  He is not saying or implying that anyone should have fewer rights than anyone else.
> 
> And since natural immunity is borderline impossible to test for, those without natural immunity derive the same benefit as those who do.  So where's the complaint?
> 
> You're starting to sound like someone whose third cousin twice removed got on a game show, and didn't say hi to you on the air.


Your point is reasonable except, again, the same could be said about the sentence below (if he had made it, which he didn't):

"The Australian government shouldn't limit people who haven't taken the vaccine to 1 hour a day outside if they already have natural immunity"

----------


## PAF

I give credit to Rand and Tom.

Most people have been slowly indoctrinated, look to others on what to do, what is PC, few have ambition to think logically for themselves.

It is the people who must wake up out of their stupor.

----------


## BortSimpson

> One would naturally leave those people out when one is making a point that is specifically about natural immunity.
> 
> You're insisting that he shoe-horn something into his tweet that is entirely outside of the point he was making.
> 
> It's just a tweet, not a treatise on the subject.


Have you heard him say that government has no business mandating vaccines regardless of natural immunity?  If so, send it along and I'll rescind my original criticism.  I haven't though and so, to me, it feels like he's leaving a large segment of the population out.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Have you heard him say that government has no business mandating vaccines regardless of natural immunity?  If so, send it along and I'll rescind my original criticism.  I haven't though and so, to me, it feels like he's leaving a large segment of the population out.


He basically says that in this video clip.
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563

----------


## CaptUSA

> Have you heard him say that government has no business mandating vaccines regardless of natural immunity?  If so, send it along and I'll rescind my original criticism.  I haven't though and so, to me, it feels like he's leaving a large segment of the population out.


Ok - just stop with the circular firing squad.  He's on your side, dude.  What's the point of complaining that he didn't do things to your liking?  Focus your ire on those pushing FOR the mandates, for crying out loud!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by acptulsa
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by BortSimpson
> ...


None of the Fauci-worshipping "government is god and science is gospel" crowd are going to be any more impressed by "vaccine mandates should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government" than by "I don't need a mandate because I have natural immunity."




> There is no use trying to make the liberty and individual choice  arguments against the left. They already openly say "f*ck your rights".  They have no problem with contradictions and hypocrisy. They are  leftists and communists, and it is part of their mindset.


At this point, the only sane response to those people is some form of Michael Malice's reply: "I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either."

----------


## acptulsa

> Ok - just stop with the circular firing squad.  He's on your side, dude.  What's the point of complaining that he didn't do things to your liking?  Focus your ire on those pushing FOR the mandates, for crying out loud!


It's the progs' job to eat their own.  We need to be _hetero_sexual about this thing.

----------


## BortSimpson

> *None of the Fauci-worshipping "government is god and science is gospel" crowd are going to be any more impressed by "vaccine mandates should not be adhered to or promulgated by the government" than by "I don't need a mandate because I have natural immunity."*
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, the only sane response to those people is some form of Michael Malice's reply: "I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either."


Fine, but then why "aim low"?  At least stand up for liberty.

----------


## BortSimpson

> He basically says that in this video clip.
> https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563


Okay that one is much better.  I'll rescind my original point then.

----------


## BortSimpson

> It's the progs' job to eat their own.  We need to be _hetero_sexual about this thing.


We shouldn't "eat our own" but we should absolutely debate each other in a mature manner.  We're the ones who are trying to live up to our principles so internal debate is important.

----------


## acptulsa

> We shouldn't "eat our own" but we should absolutely debate each other in a mature manner.  We're the ones who are trying to live up to our principles so internal debate is important.


The wolf at the door seems to think it's more important than either the niceties of civilized debate or our principles.  I don't know that I agree, but I can't deny it's more dangerous.

----------


## BortSimpson

> The wolf at the door seems to think it's more important than either the niceties of civilized debate or our principles.  I don't know that I agree, but I can't deny it's more dangerous.


I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here


Well, they're just trying to lay siege to us and starve us out so far.  They're not announcing that they're coming to inject their pathogen by force just yet, so I guess the case could be made that they have not yet declared war on us.  But I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that the time for honing and polishing our principles has come to an end, and the time to stand up and fight for them is nigh.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Fine, but then why "aim low"?  At least stand up for liberty.


Because the high-aiming, hyper-critical "things should only ever be said the best way I think they should be said" approach is not the only way to "stand up for liberty" (though it is certainly the most tediously exhausting).

----------


## jmdrake

Okay.  But I'm not in the government.  And I do care about the life and health of my fellow humans.  Also most Americans already complied with the "it's for your safety" argument post 9/11.





> As somebody stated... *The ship has sailed*.
> 
> 99% of the talk, among politicians, voters, even people on this very RPF, are anxious to talk about science, alternatives, pros/cons, but fail to make the point that *"Government Has NO Business In Healthcare - Period"*.

----------


## jmdrake

> Fine, but then why "aim low"?  At least stand up for liberty.


Think in terms of baseball.  You can always swing for the fences and strike out a lot or you can consistently go for base hits and score.  We FINALLY have the data to back up what Rand was saying last year, that you are protected from COVID if you get it and get over it.  That should be highlighted.  Pointing out these people are lying or at best badly mistaken is essential to winning.

----------


## Matt4Liberty

> Biden now wants people to lose their job if they dont submit to mandatory vaccination. 
> 
> These drunk with power politicians need to stop. 
> 
> Natural immunity and personal choice are real and should be part of any conversation about vaccination.


https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/...494735874?s=20

It's not like he doesn't have other tweets where he criticizes the mandates for other reasons. That's also making the assumption that there aren't even more tweets that were censored.

He's also breaking down their "trust the science narrative". If the science supported their argument, it still wouldn't be right, but since even their argument is wrong, they have nothing to stand on.

----------

