Screw All These Bush Haters Who Won't Praise Saddam's Capture [Archive]

gnarley

12-15-2003, 06:30 PM

I'm not a Bush hater but I will say I personally don't care for the man. What has his administration really done on the home front? That Medicare bill is a joke, if you dont think so ask your parents or some other seniors how they feel about it and it will have an affect on someone you know in a couple of years when it starts to phase in. They said something was better than nothing or it was a good start but that doesnt sit well in lots of other areas. Howd you like to go up in a plane that wasnt fully tested & then OKd to fly? Well thats what this Medicare bill was & you can thank the Bush administration for passing it when your parents loose their medical coverage and cant afford to pay for their medications.
I am glad his administration was able to finish the job his daddy didn't finish! Saddam is outa there! But I do wish that they would put as much effort into our own national economy as we do overseas. Heck I'd like to see us pull our troops out of the countries that really don't appreciate us being there and if we are to be the worlds police force then how about the foreign governments paying us back for what we do & sacrifice for them & their security. It sure seems like we don't get enough thanks for all that the USofA does. I bet if we brought a large amount of troops home & charged other countries for protecting them we could pay for medical coverage for every single citizen of the USA & not any illegals. It really is a shame how we take care of our seniors citizens and someday all of us will need some care and may not be prepared to pay the price for it.

Dr. Eagle

12-15-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
What has his administration really done on the home front? That Medicare bill is a joke,
I am glad his administration was able to finish the job his daddy didn't finish! Saddam is outa there! But I do wish that they would put as much effort into our own national economy as we do overseas. Heck I'd like to see us pull our troops out of the countries that really don't appreciate us being there and if we are to be the worlds police force then how about the foreign governments paying us back for what we do & sacrifice for them & their security. It sure seems like we don't get enough thanks for all that the USofA does. I bet if we brought a large amount of troops home & charged other countries for protecting them we could pay for medical coverage for every single citizen of the USA & not any illegals. It really is a shame how we take care of our seniors citizens and someday all of us will need some care and may not be prepared to pay the price for it.
Well I agree and disagree...
I am glad Saddam is gone, bout time.
Giving so much to other countries in monetary aid and military protection is becoming a problem, especially when we have disagreements with those countries over policy. What does all of this aid achieve?
The Medicare bill was government spending gone wild, not in the tradition of smaller government which most Republicans are purported to support.
By saying we save money by bringing home troops almost presupposes that they are decommissioned. Keeping them overseas is expensive, but the biggest expense is in the headcount. I think our military forces have shrunk as much as they should.
Socialized medicine is a poor model. Look at Canada and you will see a disfunctional system even worse than ours. Expediency is forsaken for the greater good. If you have a large procedure needed, you wait. Hope it is not a critical need, because you wait anyway.
The Economy is turning around and is well on the way to a robust recovery.
I have a problem with George W. in that he is less conservative than what I had bargained for. Government spending is shooting to all time highs, and not for the things the founders envisioned the Federal Government spending money on. Some is, of course...Defense, law enforcement, border protection...
But too much feelgood entitlement programs that have bankrupt other countries.
My 0.2

gnarley

12-15-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Socialized medicine is a poor model. Look at Canada and you will see a dysfunctional system even worse than ours. Expediency is forsaken for the greater good. If you have a large procedure needed, you wait. Hope it is not a critical need, because you wait anyway.
The Economy is turning around and is well on the way to a robust recovery.
Well one thing that the Canadians did was to get lower prices for meds, the same meds we pay 10 times more for. It is strange that our own FDA cannot reign in on the drug makers for the over pricing or just allow our citizens to go get them where they want & pay the consequences if the formula is not the same. AS far as the economy I am holding out on that one, they say unemployment is down, do you know why? When an unemployment claim runs out they count that claim as now working even if they are not. And some of those who did go back to work are earning 75% less than they were because of job elimination or the job was shipped overseas. We are becoming more & more dependant on overseas labor & one day it will bite us and the companies who moved those jobs over there in the ASS.
Our health care system is pretty good but it is changing and putting an ever-increasing amount of the burden on the employee because the health care prices are out of control. Small businesss are getting pinched they want to provide health care if they can but how can they if it means they cant afford to or would have to close the doors. Something needs to be done.
SO Ill say it again; Bush aint doin enough to fix our own problems. But you know he is doing a lot to make sure some of them big contracts go to his friends who then also overcharge us, but then thats never changed from year to year, that happens with every Administration.

Jordy

12-15-2003, 07:56 PM

I for one am happy that they captured that low life piece of shit alive. If nothing else for the satisfaction of watching Saddam rat out all his "fellow countrymen" to save his own pathetic little ass.
Think of it this way, if he were killed his suporters (and more than likely the anti-Bush posse) would have made a whole big deal on how it was a look alike because Saddam wouldn't have gone out like that, or it was a publicity deal, or Saddam went out fighting evil America and his memory should be remembered and fought for by his little band of supporters.
Now, everyone can see that the guy is nothing more than a big pussy who is overdue for some retribution. I think some of the victims' families and survivors of his torture chambers should be the ones twisting the screws on that scumbag.
Did I mention "**** YOU CATMANDO"???? I've noticed AzCommieDon and his little puppet have been pretty quiet too...
:D

Dr. Eagle

12-15-2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
Well one thing that the Canadians did was to get lower prices for meds, the same meds we pay 10 times more for.
SO Ill say it again; Bush aint doin enough to fix our own problems. But you know he is doing a lot to make sure some of them big contracts go to his friends who then also overcharge us, but then thats never changed from year to year, that happens with every Administration.
Yeah, the Canadians get cheaper meds WHEN THEY CAN GET IN TO SEE THE DOCTOR TO GET A PRESCRIPTION....
And I disagree whole heartedly, GW is doing TOO MUCH to "fix" our own problems. His best work was stimulating the economy with the Tax cuts, otherwise government spending has been out of control.
Government is not the end all. It does not fix everything. It cannot create, only consume.
So you can say it all you want, I ain't buyin it...

gnarley

12-15-2003, 09:36 PM

Dr. Eagle if Bush's best work was stimulating the economy with the Tax cuts he needs to try something better like stop all the entitlements & pork barrel spending, can't he just cay NO? I don't remember what was cut or for who. The only thing I seem to have benefited from was the tax refund and as far as I was concerned he could of kept mine & applied that to the federal deficit, a few hundred dollars really didn't do much for me. One good thing about the time since he has been in office, Interest rates are at all time lows, low interest rates = recession.

Dr. Eagle

12-15-2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
Dr. Eagle if Bush's best work was stimulating the economy with the Tax cuts he needs to try something better like stop all the entitlements & pork barrel spending, can't he just cay NO? I don't remember what was cut or for who. The only thing I seem to have benefited from was the tax refund and as far as I was concerned he could of kept mine & applied that to the federal deficit, a few hundred dollars really didn't do much for me. One good thing about the time since he has been in office, Interest rates are at all time lows, low interest rates = recession.
Well Gnarles, I agree with you on the spending. That is the thing he has let just run out of control, and even been the instigator in many cases.
As far as the tex cuts, Reagans tax cuts were similar in their effect on me personally. Not much in the pocket in reality, but it did seem to help push the economy along!
Now as far as Low interest rates = recession, huh? Don't you remember the late 70s recession before Reagan came in? Mortgage rates were in the neighborhood of 17% and the high rates caused the recession. They were the result of the Fed trying to get inflation under control.
Guess in this case the Fed has the luxury of lowering to almost negative levels to stimulate the economy because there is no inflation to speak of...

Kilrtoy

12-15-2003, 11:51 PM

I love bush, all bushes
and Im glad GWB went over there and KICKED THERE ASSES

Infomaniac

12-16-2003, 01:28 AM

http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/506/211saddam.jpg

sleekster

12-16-2003, 05:25 AM

i too voted for bush, but then again i vote for whoever i like democrat or republican. but there are a couple of things bush has done that has pissed me off 1st he is in the process of taking away overtime pay for millions of people and further more stateing that companies will be able to work people up to 70 hours a week. that means it would be mandatory. also when we went into iraq he said the cost of rebuilding iraq would be funded by iraq, but now he sent 13 some odd billion dollars of our tax money over there. if interested in learning more on the proposal to take away overtime pay click on the link, i think this action by bush alone demonstrates to whom he is ultimately loyal to and it ain't the working man. http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/R1zgBdn1ddcg//

v-drive

12-16-2003, 05:59 AM

This grocery strike has deafend(spelling) my ears to anything proposed by a "unionvoice" so please excuse me if I choose to decline signing said petition. You go George!
:p v-drive

Dr. Eagle

12-16-2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Infomaniac
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/506/211saddam.jpg
No Shizzle...:D

Dr. Eagle

12-16-2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by sleekster
i too voted for bush, but then again i vote for whoever i like democrat or republican. but there are a couple of things bush has done that has pissed me off 1st he is in the process of taking away overtime pay for millions of people and further more stateing that companies will be able to work people up to 70 hours a week. that means it would be mandatory. also when we went into iraq he said the cost of rebuilding iraq would be funded by iraq, but now he sent 13 some odd billion dollars of our tax money over there. if interested in learning more on the proposal to take away overtime pay click on the link, i think this action by bush alone demonstrates to whom he is ultimately loyal to and it ain't the working man. http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/R1zgBdn1ddcg//
So let me ask you this.
Why is it OK for a company to expect that kind of work performance/attendance from a salaried employee and pay them NO overtime...or straight time for that matter?
Seems a double standard. I have been working 12 hours a day seven days a week for two months. Finally got a day off this last weekend. And my check will be exactly what it would have been if I had worked 40 hours.
Oh but then I am that evil management type...:rolleyes:

MagicMtnDan

12-16-2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Infomaniac
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/506/211saddam.jpg
That's a great cartoon! I'm gonna send it to everyone I know who is still whining about WMDs (all the Bush-haters) and why we went there.
Another benefit of the war - a lot of the terrorists in the middle east (funny to say that since it seems like EVERY terrorist is in or from the middle east) are flocking to Iraq to attack Americans. In reality, it seems like that place has become a magnet for a lot of terrorists (al Qaeda and other American-haters) and it's actually helping to make the rest of the world a bit safer.

THOR

12-16-2003, 07:19 AM

gnarley

12-16-2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by THOR
These problems that you speak about... Do you think that Bush inhereted any of these? From whom? This may take about 2 seconds to figure out why these problems are here.
Yeah I think he may have inherited them & have gotten wayyyy worse on his watch. From whom??? Lets see there was Clinton, then DADDY Bush and Reagan. I won't go any farther but if our currents commander in Chief had any cahonies he'd say the buck stopped there & do something about it instead of passing the buck or further Fu*king the citizens.

THOR

12-16-2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by gnarley
Yeah I think he may have inherited them & have gotten wayyyy worse on his watch. From whom??? Lets see there was Clinton, then DADDY Bush and Reagan. I won't go any farther but if our currents commander in Chief had any cahonies he'd say the buck stopped there & do something about it instead of passing the buck or further Fu*king the citizens.
It is really difficult to have a rational conversation with a person that is not only narrow minded but has tunnel vision. Just give GWB some credit, he did a good job and should get credit. Leave it at that, but dont bash the guy. This is the best xmas present America could have outside of catching Bin Laden.

Blown 472

12-16-2003, 09:19 AM

THOR

12-16-2003, 09:38 AM

What factual basis do have to support your opinions????

Blown 472

12-16-2003, 09:41 AM

about the war machine? ask around it has been said time and time agian.
bush and bin ladin?? heard it on the bbc.

THOR

12-16-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
about the war machine? ask around it has been said time and time agian.
bush and bin ladin?? heard it on the bbc.
I am well aware that war generates spending and helps the economy, but as far as believing the bbc???:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Blown 472

12-16-2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by THOR
I am well aware that war generates spending and helps the economy, but as far as believing the bbc???:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I would believe the bbc before I would any media over here. Funny thing bout them is I read stories on line with them and then a day or two later it is here, after it has gone thru all the filters.

gnarley

12-16-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by THOR
It is really difficult to have a rational conversation with a person that is not only narrow minded but has tunnel vision. Just give GWB some credit, he did a good job and should get credit. Leave it at that, but dont bash the guy. This is the best xmas present America could have outside of catching Bin Laden.
THOR, I couldnt have a rational conversation with an unarmed person, look in a mirror, it is you who is narrow-minded idiot. Dont throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
You don't have a friggen clue as to how I think or what I think. I think for myself and not what the Republicans or Democrats want me to think. I don't blindly follow anyone's lead.
I'll say it again Hey I am glad we caught that bastard Saddam. And I'll say that was a great show of support Bush did on Thanksgiving. I can give praise for someone who I do not like.
But I think the credit really needs to go to our troops who found Saddam, not Bush. It's our troops who are risking their lives and sacrificing for us.
AS far as the best Christmas present??? I hope its worth it to the families who wont have a daddy coming home.
Ill really give Bush praise if he stops spending so much over there and instead spends it here. I'm not talking about cutting spending to support our troops, they need all the help & support we can give them, I'm talking about our money to rebuild Iraq. I would even feel OK if the US loaned Iraq money to rebuild if they were to pay us back out of their oil profits, Iraq should pay us for their liberation, they have the money in the ground!

THOR

12-16-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by gnarley
THOR, I couldnt have a rational conversation with an unarmed person, look in a mirror, it is you who is narrow-minded idiot. Dont throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
You don't have a friggen clue as to how I think or what I think. I think for myself and not what the Republicans or Democrats want me to think. I don't blindly follow anyone's lead.
I'll say it again Hey I am glad we caught that bastard Saddam. And I'll say that was a great show of support Bush did on Thanksgiving. I can give praise for someone who I do not like.
But I think the credit really needs to go to our troops who found Saddam, not Bush. It's our troops who are risking their lives and sacrificing for us.
AS far as the best Christmas present??? I hope its worth it to the families who wont have a daddy coming home.
Ill really give Bush praise if he stops spending so much over there and instead spends it here. I'm not talking about cutting spending to support our troops, they need all the help & support we can give them, I'm talking about our money to rebuild Iraq. I would even feel OK if the US loaned Iraq money to rebuild if they were to pay us back out of their oil profits, Iraq should pay us for their liberation, they have the money in the ground!
You are absolutely right. You are smart, all knowing, and brilliant. I am dumb. I'll give you your soapbox back.

JakeAisA

12-16-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
Well one thing that the Canadians did was to get lower prices for meds, the same meds we pay 10 times more for. It is strange that our own FDA cannot reign in on the drug makers for the over pricing or just allow our citizens to go get them where they want & pay the consequences if the formula is not the same. AS far as the economy I am holding out on that one, they say unemployment is down, do you know why? When an unemployment claim runs out they count that claim as now working even if they are not. And some of those who did go back to work are earning 75% less than they were because of job elimination or the job was shipped overseas. We are becoming more & more dependant on overseas labor & one day it will bite us and the companies who moved those jobs over there in the ASS.
Our health care system is pretty good but it is changing and putting an ever-increasing amount of the burden on the employee because the health care prices are out of control. Small businesss are getting pinched they want to provide health care if they can but how can they if it means they cant afford to or would have to close the doors. Something needs to be done.
SO Ill say it again; Bush aint doin enough to fix our own problems. But you know he is doing a lot to make sure some of them big contracts go to his friends who then also overcharge us, but then thats never changed from year to year, that happens with every Administration.
Gnarley,
Do you know why drugs cost less in Canada and in Europe? Because they steal it. The rug patents of American companies are not respected in Canada or abroad. It's real cheap to produce a drug when you don't have to invent or pay the inventor of it, just copy it. The costs to make a drug aren't the chemicals that go into the pill or the machines that actually make and package the pill; it's the years and years of research, Billions of dollars lost on unsuccessful research and failed ideas, and the seven or so years required to get the FDA to approve your drug. over 95% of the worlds new drugs are produced by American, PRIVATE, drug companies. Why? Becuase only in America are companies allowed to make money off thier invention. Why would an investor give money to a company that must spend 10 years on research costing 10 billion dollars only to be limited, by law to "profit" only 10% of the direct costs of that drug? A company makes a 100 times the actual cost of any given drug that finally makes it because there are 1,000 drugs that didn't make it and the company ate the cost. It's capitalism. There's a huge risk in funding a cure for something with a drug, and companies are being ripped off by other countries that don't respect property rights. We pay more for drugs here because the rest of the world steals it from American companies. If America were regulate drug prices like they do in Canada, how the **** are you going to convince Wall Street to fund new drug research? They'll go buy Wall Mart stock and bonds instead. What investor, what businessman is going to lose money to create a new drug? They won't, it's obvious what will happen.
Besides, can you tell me what the proper cost for a cancer curing, or life saving drug should be? Are you going to tell me that a drug that saves somebody's life today that didn't exist yesterday, is too expensive? And dude, don't you think the company is going to price it at least to where some people can get it? They won't sell any pills if they charge too much for them, so they'll price it at the point to where they make the most money. Depending on the demand from the market, that price could be low (Walmart volume pricing) or high (Nordstrom's pricing). It depends on the drug's demand and the company's ability to supply it.
If you don't understand why drugs are more expensive in the US then there's no way you can tell me what each drug should cost.

Blown 472

12-16-2003, 12:16 PM

hummm and just the other day I heard that american drug companies ship drugs to canada for the same wholesale price but the gubment of canada does let them mark them up so high, but then agian they dont have lobbiest in washington giving the politicians truck loads of money.

JakeAisA

12-16-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Blown 472
hummm and just the other day I heard that american drug companies ship drugs to canada for the same wholesale price but the gubment of canada does let them mark them up so high, but then agian they dont have lobbiest in washington giving the politicians truck loads of money.
Do you want to know why? Becuase it's a better prospect to make very little money then to make none at all. The canadians threaten to produce American Companyies' drugs without permission. The comprimise is a comprimise with a burgler. The drug companies recieve very little sympathy here in America and so they pay the ransom. If I were CEO of one of these companies, I'd tell these looters to **** off. But I understand why they give in, it's their job to maximise return to thier stockholders, so they pay ransoms to make a little over the prospect of making nothing.

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-16-2003, 12:40 PM

just something to think about.......I am by no means a liberal cock sucker by I do like to open my eyes to what happens in govt. Do you know who put Saddam into power back in 1978? I'll give you a hint, he works for Mr. Bush now. can you say rumy? Is it anything new that Saddam has weapons of mass distruction. nope. We politely turned our heads while he collected and used chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians. So why all the sudden the big hype about this guy have chemical weapons? he's had them for 20 years and we have known about it. I think this all stems from a bad business realationship between the bush's and Saddam. So if you really want to trace it all back it begins during the Regan administration.
Omega

sleekster

12-16-2003, 12:56 PM

dr.eagle don't you think you deserve an hours pay for an hours work? or maybe you don't work that hard or maybe you are not that good at what you do? i too am a salary worker that gets paid for overtime. if in fact you are managment then you probably (at least you would if you worked with me) get a company car and or bonuses plus other various perks such as enhanced stock plans, etc. you see those people above us who try to sell you on loyalty and casual overtime these are the same people who get paid for every hour they put in it's called a bonus, or stock options. just becouse we are getting screwed let's not forsake our children. i don't want my wife to have to work so we can maintain a middle class lifestyle. you know when my father was in his late 20's he had 4 kids, a new home, 2 new cars, hunting property and my mother never worked, my father was a tool and die maker blue collar baby all the way. but he was willing to work and thank god they were willing to pay for his services. this was not unique to our family everbody i new when i was young was this way. now ask yourself as a professional how do you stack up.
you know it is'nt a union thing at all but remember without those unions driving up the pay scale how much do you think we would be making. i know were i work they started to make us pay for medical but when the union did'nt budge and maintained full coverage the company came back the next year with a 1500.00 lump sum payment for us salary folks, do you think if the union would have caved they would have done this for us? well a little long winded but remember overtime was created to protect the 40 hour work week, without it under bush's plan again the company could schedule you 70 hours a week, but it sounds like you are used to it, frankly myself i value my family time a little more i guess.

JakeAisA

12-16-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
just something to think about.......I am by no means a liberal cock sucker by I do like to open my eyes to what happens in govt. Do you know who put Saddam into power back in 1978? I'll give you a hint, he works for Mr. Bush now. can you say rumy? Is it anything new that Saddam has weapons of mass distruction. nope. We politely turned our heads while he collected and used chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians. So why all the sudden the big hype about this guy have chemical weapons? he's had them for 20 years and we have known about it. I think this all stems from a bad business realationship between the bush's and Saddam. So if you really want to trace it all back it begins during the Regan administration.
Omega
Hey Omega, are you saying that we should have cared about Iranians getting gassed? I mean, really, Iran is ****ed. Two bad guys were duking it out and we thought Iran was worse...turns out that both were equally as bad!!! So what. Like I told Miss BK on the Screw Europe thread: We got it right in 91 and ever since with Saddam. Should we let Saddam go just because we learned that he was a **** later then we should have? What's your ****ing point? "We should have known about Saddam in 1980 instead of 1990, so since we ****ed up then, we can't make it right now." Give me a break, the world didn't get Hitler right until 1939 when he invaded Poland; should we have not have fought WWII against him becuase we should have known how ****ed he was in 1933? What a lame argument.

JakeAisA

12-16-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by sleekster
dr.eagle don't you think you deserve an hours pay for an hours work? or maybe you don't work that hard or maybe you are not that good at what you do? i too am a salary worker that gets paid for overtime. if in fact you are managment then you probably (at least you would if you worked with me) get a company car and or bonuses plus other various perks such as enhanced stock plans, etc. you see those people above us who try to sell you on loyalty and casual overtime these are the same people who get paid for every hour they put in it's called a bonus, or stock options. just becouse we are getting screwed let's not forsake our children. i don't want my wife to have to work so we can maintain a middle class lifestyle. you know when my father was in his late 20's he had 4 kids, a new home, 2 new cars, hunting property and my mother never worked, my father was a tool and die maker blue collar baby all the way. but he was willing to work and thank god they were willing to pay for his services. this was not unique to our family everbody i new when i was young was this way. now ask yourself as a professional how do you stack up.
you know it is'nt a union thing at all but remember without those unions driving up the pay scale how much do you think we would be making. i know were i work they started to make us pay for medical but when the union did'nt budge and maintained full coverage the company came back the next year with a 1500.00 lump sum payment for us salary folks, do you think if the union would have caved they would have done this for us? well a little long winded but remember overtime was created to protect the 40 hour work week, without it under bush's plan again the company could schedule you 70 hours a week, but it sounds like you are used to it, frankly myself i value my family time a little more i guess.
"...frankly myself i value my family time a little more i guess."
At whose expense? This is America, not Russia. If you don't like your job, or the terms of your employer offers then go work somewhere else. Unions slow down innovation, technological progress, the economic cycle and they encourage "workers" to stay at the bottom. Nothing good can come from a philosophy that preaches "more pay for less work".

mikev

12-16-2003, 02:13 PM

gnarley you sure your not a democrat you sure contradict yourself
I'm not a Bush hater but I will say I personally don't care for the man. What has his administration really done on the home front? That Medicare bill is a joke, if you dont think so ask your parents or some other seniors how they feel about it and it will have an affect on someone you know in a couple of years when it starts to phase
then
Dr. Eagle if Bush's best work was stimulating the economy with the Tax cuts he needs to try something better like stop all the entitlements & pork barrel spending, can't he just cay NO? I don't remember what was cut or for who.
so they didnt get give a big enough entitlement program for you they you whine about to many entitlements ????
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JakeAisA

12-16-2003, 02:22 PM

gnarly,
Looks like Mikev just cooked you.

Miss BK

12-16-2003, 02:30 PM

The last thing we should ever do is forget the key elements that makes America # 1. Identify the things that have always been the heart of the prosperous United States, which differ so vastly from the weaker nations and NEVER sit back and let the leaders erode away at those parts. To allow this will be disastrous.

Miss BK

12-16-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
just something to think about.......I am by no means a liberal cock sucker by I do like to open my eyes to what happens in govt. Do you know who put Saddam into power back in 1978? I'll give you a hint, he works for Mr. Bush now. can you say rumy? Is it anything new that Saddam has weapons of mass distruction. nope. We politely turned our heads while he collected and used chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians. So why all the sudden the big hype about this guy have chemical weapons? he's had them for 20 years and we have known about it. I think this all stems from a bad business realationship between the bush's and Saddam. So if you really want to trace it all back it begins during the Regan administration.
Omega
You are correct, Omega. When we see those mass graves they are showing now, we can know that we have a partial responsibility for those lives lost there. To fuss about it 20 years after the fact - after we gave Saddam the green light to do it - is nothing more than hypocrisy and will fuel the multi-national anti-US anger even more.
When Iran came to the UN and begged them to intervene in 1984 -- and demanded we force Saddam to STOP using chemicals on the Kurds and the Iranians, our response was:
"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
Is it any wonder they hate us?
Rumsfeld and Saddam, circa 1984
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

MJ19

12-16-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
if our currents commander in Chief had any cahonies
I feel Bush has way more 'cahonies' then our past president...however, I wouldn't mind seeing him get even more cahonies by stopping all the 'free bee hand outs'....folks that can't support themselves should move to some socialized or commie country. All the free bee liberal give-a-ways should be stopped cold turkey and let the 'survival of the fittess' begin. Now that would be an awesome tax cut in my opinion :D

JakeAisA

12-16-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
You are correct, Omega. When we see those mass graves they are showing now, we can know that we have a partial responsibility for those lives lost there. To fuss about it 20 years after the fact - after we gave Saddam the green light to do it - is nothing more than hypocrisy and will fuel the multi-national anti-US anger even more.
When Iran came to the UN and begged them to intervene in 1984 -- and demanded we force Saddam to STOP using chemicals on the Kurds and the Iranians, our response was:
"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
Is it any wonder they hate us?
Rumsfeld and Saddam, circa 1984
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg
You are so anti-american.

gnarley

12-16-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Gnarley,
Do you know why drugs cost less in Canada and in Europe? Because they steal it.
Like Blown 472 said "American drug companies ship drugs to Canada for the same wholesale price"
Funny you said the Canaidians would steal them if our drug companies wouldn't sell them at a reasonable price???
Then you say "Becuase it's a better prospect to make very little money then to make none at all"
I would try to get my facts straight before I started stating what I felt were facts. And I bet most of us know how drugs are made tested, marketed and sold. As far as our own drug pricing goes, those companies that sell them want as much profit as possible, DUH.
Maybe our Friend Jungle Boy will see this and give us the facts about Canadian drug policy or Spectras Only since they are from Canada.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mikev
gnarley you sure your not a democrat you sure contradict yourself
Yeah Dam sure I'm not a Democrat, it's called free thinking and not afraid to speak my mind. Maybe I am a little touchy about this subject, and everyone has a right to their own opinions. Maybe my anger comes out a little bit, stopping all entitlements is a bit to far & I didn't mean for it to be taken literally.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a Bush hater but I will say I personally don't care for the man. What has his administration really done on the home front? That Medicare bill is a joke, if you dont think so ask your parents or some other seniors how they feel about it and it will have an affect on someone you know in a couple of years when it starts to phase
And your point is? Mine is we could try spending some our own hard earned tax dollars at home instead of abroad. Do you like seeing your tax dollars spent overseas?
then
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Eagle if Bush's best work was stimulating the economy with the Tax cuts he needs to try something better like stop all the entitlements & pork barrel spending, can't he just cay NO? I don't remember what was cut or for who.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So they didnt get give a big enough entitlement program for you they you whine about to many entitlements ????
Yeah I do whine about too many entitlements, there are some that are needed & I bet a lot more that arent. Again Id much rather see our hard earned dollars where they help us the most and not some ungrateful foreign government.
Instead of helping out so many other countries we could better help ourselves. One of the first things I could think of is fixing our countries infrastructure like the decaying roads & bridges and better arming our boarder patrols to make sure we dont get illegals coming here uninvited or better arming our customs to find stuff smuggled in by those that would want to cause us harm.
Hows that for better spending our hard earned tax dollars?

AzDon

12-16-2003, 09:16 PM

I'm not even going to get into mudwrestling over "entitlement programs", because they were mostly neutered during the Clinton administration, when 2 year time limits were put on welfare. As for Bush and his taste for war and delivering bad news, everything about the guy has been bad news or had thinly veiled bad news or twisted statistics behind it.
I'M SICK OF BAD NEWS!!
Bush's predecessor, Mr. Clinton, related to him the serious threat that Osama Bin Laden posed, but Mr. Bush didn't give the issue as high a priority as Clinton did and the result was Sept. 11! I didn't see any thing particularly brave about jumping on AF-1 and flying around to anywhere-but-Washington with a full fighter-jet escort in those first hours when most Americans felt vulnerable, yet, if you donate enough to his campaign, you can get a photo of him on the phone from AF-1 that day checking the status of HIS safety!
The guy gave away future revenues that the government apparently needs to fund itself, evidenced by the conversion of 2 years of budget surplusses into the largest deficit of all time!
The guy started and finished 2 "preemptive" wars that apparently had no mop-up and exit stategies and refuses to consider siezing Iraq's oil to pay us for our efforts and establish the new order of things in that country.
The guy started a recession merely by being elected!!! a fitting reward for a guy that had spent the previous year "talking down" a 7 year boom! Apparently all the fatcats were anxious for the "corporate welfare" they had bought by supporting Bush's campaign, but they all pulled their own money out WITHIN DAYS of getting him elected!
The guy is totally "out of touch" with the concerns or plight of working Americans whose "civilized" wages are constantly being threatened by competition of "cheap wage" foreign products or "cheap wage" immigrants or watching their own companies leave the country with the government's blessing! If YOU can add 100 grand to this guy's campaign, though, He'll work real hard for YOU!
Environmental regulations? job safety standards? energy regulation? working conditions? personal civil rights? Do I even need to go there?
Job creation: Diane Sawyer asked Mr. Bush in an interview aired tonight how 200,000 jobs per month were going to be created, preventing him from the biggest net loss of jobs of any administration since Herbert Hoover. What she didn't ask him was how many of those jobs would have a higher pay scheme than those that were lost!
No Inflation? HMMM... My electricity just went up 22% as did my water bill. My house has doubled in value, so my property taxes will also, and I'm sure that I was paying half as much for gasoline 2 years ago! And how about those new boat or auto prices? Yeah, there's "falling prices" on cheap foriegn shit at Wall Mart, which seems okay from the consumer viewpoint, but helps vote jobs out of the country!
WHAT EXACTLY is it that you guys like so much about George Bush??? In my view, he has yet to do a single thing that actually benefits anybody who gets dressed and leaves for work every morning. The tax rebate we all got is simply money that the government is going to have to collect back from us down the road to repay the loan (deficit) that made it possible! Worse, individuals' taxes will likely end up repaying Ken Lay's and Bill Gates's (et al) share!

Dr. Eagle

12-16-2003, 09:28 PM

Calm down Don, your union roots are showing...:rolleyes:

gnarley

12-16-2003, 09:36 PM

AzDon, I'm with ya & tired of hearing bad news. Like good jobs lost & then replaced by non-benefit low pay Wal-Mart type jobs. The list goes on & on but I think Don says it well & could back up his statements if needed. We didn't have a great choice in the last election & I don't know who I liked less for different reasons, Bush & Gore both sucked & we are now suffering the consequences of Bush.

AzDon

12-16-2003, 10:02 PM

By the time I was old enough to apply for a union job in trucking, the Reagan recession and union bashing and deregulation had made those jobs impossible to get. By the time opportunities opened up a bit, I had too much responsibility to afford "casual" union work rather than a full time non-union paycheck....... In other words, I've never had the privelege of working for someone that was willing to pay me my worth (by the union definition) or worked in a work environment as civilized and protected as the union guys have had!
You can bash union all you want...I know it's popular, but you'd be hard pressed to show me ANY example of employment where blue-collar workers have been better paid, better insured, had their duties, job protections and work environment better defined and had effective advocates assigned when disputes occur. Unions and union wages created the consumer economy that has been steadily eroding ever since open season was declared on (first) unions and then on all businesses that refuse to mudwrestle by lowering (first) their prices and (resultantly) their wages. The day is coming (soon) when the fixed costs of a household will run at a high enough percentage of income that "falling prices" at Wal-Mart aren't going to entice people to spend money they don't have!

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 05:05 AM

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
You are so anti-american.
I thought this country was founded on the freedom of speech? since when is questioning your gubment anti american?? you really think that they have your best interests at heart?? please pull your head out, why in the **** do you think people who have a ton of money run for office?? some pie in the sky idealistic horse shit about being there for the betterment of their fellow man?? nope they are there to make more money plan and simple cant you see the writting on the walls?? sheesh. you need to be an american and open your eyes.

THOR

12-17-2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
You are so anti-american.
I agree

MagicMtnDan

12-17-2003, 07:16 AM

AzDon is a socialist and doesn't know it. And your Bush-bashing must stop.
Bush's predecessor, Mr. Clinton, related to him the serious threat that Osama Bin Laden posed, but Mr. Bush didn't give the issue as high a priority as Clinton did and the result was Sept. 11!
How dare you try and blame Bush for Osama bin Laden and 9/11!!! How dare you, you lying liar! Clinton could've wiped out bin Laden but didn't. Blaming Bush for 9/11 shows your true colors - you're a left-wing socialist Bush-hater who is blinded by your hatred for our President and his success.
Your whining about your union job and wages and jobs is a crock of $hit! Get out there and find a job like 90% of us have to do. When your job sucks you can keep complaining or go get a new one. The economy was cycling down at the end of Clinton's administration and is now cycling back up. You can blame Clinton, you can blame Bush but what you ought to do is go look in the mirror and see who really is to blame. It's you you whiner.

THOR

12-17-2003, 07:24 AM

Typical AzDon, communist bullshit. Just because your finances and welfare has not turned out the way you like, dont blame Bush. You are f&*^ing scary Don. Really.

MagicMtnDan

12-17-2003, 07:34 AM

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by MagicMtnDan
Aw Blown, do you really believe this crap or is this just another one of your pot-stirring posts?
How do you explain the biggest boom in our economy in history happening during Clinton's administration (I'm not crediting Clinton for the boom nor do I blame Bush for the economy's downturn and now the rebound)? The economy is not "based on a war machine!"
And your comment about Bush wacking (sic) him is pure stupidity and anti-Bush bias.
Is it, 8 months to find saddam, how long we bin looking for him?

MagicMtnDan

12-17-2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
I would believe the bbc before I would any media over here. Funny thing bout them is I read stories on line with them and then a day or two later it is here, after it has gone thru all the filters.
Furthermore you would do well to double-check your willingness to believe in the BBC so readily. That network is no different than any other - they're biased and have their own problems. You need to filter what you read and hear and not be so quick to accept it no matter what the source.
Click here to read about BBC bias (http://www.bbcbias.org/html/objectives.html)
Click here to read about BBC bias (http://www.netanyahu.org/bbcbias.html)

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by MagicMtnDan
Furthermore you would do well to double-check your willingness to believe in the BBC so readily. That network is no different than any other - they're biased and have their own problems. You need to filter what you read and hear and not be so quick to accept it no matter what the source.
Click here to read about BBC bias (http://www.bbcbias.org/html/objectives.html)
Click here to read about BBC bias (http://www.netanyahu.org/bbcbias.html)
All media is bias, the bbc choses to air stories that the western media wouldn't.

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 07:59 AM

I agree. The media is increasingly becoming biased, and stories that are huge in other countries, might not even make the briefing pages here:
Here's one that was a major item in Asia, that the US news outlets left on the cutting room floor:
Bush recommits to US-Australia trade deal by 2004
Trade gifts for aiding in Iraq war
Thursday, 23-Oct-2003 9:47AM PDT
CANBERRA, Oct 23 (AFP) - US President George W. Bush recommitted Thursday to sealing a US-Australia free trade deal by year's end, amid concerns about a possible delay because of differences on agriculture.
"What I'm committed to is seeing that we can get this free trade agreement done by the end of December," Bush told reporters during a brief public appearance as he met with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
Australia estimates a deal would boost its economy by four billion dollars (2.76 billion US) a year, but Howard has pushed for "a movement of significance by the Americans in relation to agriculture".
Australia's farmers regard their US counterparts as heavily subsidised and Canberra is pushing for Washington to relax import quotes and reduce tariffs as part of a deal.
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/df/Qaustralia-us-bush-trade.R3Rp_DON.html

MagicMtnDan

12-17-2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
Is it, 8 months to find saddam, how long we bin looking for him?
So now you're complaining about how long it took us to find Saddam?!:yuk:
I've got an idea, I will hide somewhere in California and you can try and find me. How long do you think it will take you to do that?
Iraq is about the same size as the state of California. Saddam was hiding in a hole in the ground about the size of a refrigerator. Do you really think it took our troops too long to find him? Do you really? Or is this just more pot-stirring?

AzDon

12-17-2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by MagicMtnDan
AzDon is a socialist and doesn't know it. And your Bush-bashing must stop.
How dare you try and blame Bush for Osama bin Laden and 9/11!!! How dare you, you lying liar! Clinton could've wiped out bin Laden but didn't. Blaming Bush for 9/11 shows your true colors - you're a left-wing socialist Bush-hater who is blinded by your hatred for our President and his success.
Your whining about your union job and wages and jobs is a crock of $hit! Get out there and find a job like 90% of us have to do. When your job sucks you can keep complaining or go get a new one. The economy was cycling down at the end of Clinton's administration and is now cycling back up. You can blame Clinton, you can blame Bush but what you ought to do is go look in the mirror and see who really is to blame. It's you you whiner.
Look! Another name-calling rant by Magic Rainbow Dan with absolutely no substance and more proof that his assumptive imagination is more developed than his ability to read! (I said I never worked a union job, asshole!)
I have a perfectly good job that does not suck, paying me wages that are better than 95% of the replacement jobs in my field. Unfortunately, irrational and cutthroat rate competition in trucking has put extreme downward pressure on wages industrywide during a period when the prices of life's necessities have risen drastically (what used to be called "inflation")
Unless you own or work for a company without competitors or already work at minimum wage, your wages are every bit as vulnerable to downward pressure as mine!
You think your hero GWB gives a damn about any of this???
Go find another job?
Go find a better job?
Sure thing Bud!!

gnarley

12-17-2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by MagicMtnDan
Get out there and find a job like 90% of us have to do. When your job sucks you can keep complaining or go get a new one.
Dan I'm not going to dispute your thinking, you have a right to think what ever you want, right? It is a free country. But speaking from someone who in the last two and a half years has lost jobs your comments don't sit well with me.
I was an IT (Information Technology Director) I left on my own for a better paying job as IT Director @ 85K a year and getting my DOD clearance, then the company crashed & burned a year after I joined them letting 40% of it's employees go in June of 2001. I didn't cry I understand that is the right of the employer to do what they must to survive, but I wasn't happy either!
At this same time most of the high tech companies in my area were also going through similar situations, lots of unemployed high tech people to compete with for relatively few jobs, but I landed one, it lasted a year & a half as a systems administrator with a growing company making 35K less than the IT Director position, but hey it was a job right? Well that company did real good but bought a company 3 times our size in Golden, Colorado. I wasn't moving there & they were. I was one of the first let go & by phone call in July.
There still aren't many IT jobs in my area & we are thinking of leaving due to the lack of jobs. So you say go find a job like 90% of us have to do. I have been told I am a displaced worker, meaning I need to retrain to do something else other than what I was doing, not great but such is life, you never know which way its going to turn or when.
Let me ask you this; if you couldnt find work in your area, in what you do, if you do work, would you take a job at Wal-Mart for minimum wage?
You also said, When your job sucks you can keep complaining or go get a new one well thats not always the case, when there are jobs available that works. If there arent any job openings & you have one that pays the bills & some benefits, Id say be happy you have one, you could be looking at Wal-Mart. If you were a ride operator at Magic Mountain & they closed down what would you do? I bet there arent to many other jobs doing that near there.

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
Is it, 8 months to find saddam, how long we bin looking for him?
it's not close enough to election time yet......what a campaign booster it will be. Bin Laden found 2 months before the polls open, that way it will be fresh on the sheoples minds.
Omega

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
I thought this country was founded on the freedom of speech? since when is questioning your gubment anti american?? you really think that they have your best interests at heart?? please pull your head out, why in the **** do you think people who have a ton of money run for office?? some pie in the sky idealistic horse shit about being there for the betterment of their fellow man?? nope they are there to make more money plan and simple cant you see the writting on the walls?? sheesh. you need to be an american and open your eyes.
very well said. this govt. was set up as a republic if we could keep it. the words of our founding fathers. think about it. time to take the blinders off and realize your place in society.......
Omega

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
it's not close enough to election time yet......what a campaign booster it will be. Bin Laden found 2 months before the polls open, that way it will be fresh on the sheoples minds.
Omega
That is interesting as there was an article on the bbc yesterday about sadamm and his trial and they said he wont go to trial until after the elections as it could embarrass some folks. baaaaaaaaa

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
That is interesting as there was an article on the bbc yesterday about sadamm and his trial and they said he wont go to trial until after the elections as it could embarrass some folks. baaaaaaaaa
wouldn't want to make it obvious that this was a business deal gone bad that started this war.....
Omega

Windy

12-17-2003, 10:02 AM

Im just wondering if anyone here has read this book? You wont be able to put it down.
http://www.webdesk.com/see-no-evil-bob-robert-baer-cia-war-on-terrorism/

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by MissHBjet
Im just wondering if anyone here has read this book? You wont be able to put it down.
http://www.webdesk.com/see-no-evil-bob-robert-baer-cia-war-on-terrorism/
if you like that one you should try this one http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/097100420X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0973633-3087237#reader-link. It might change your opinions of the Bush family, Clinton and all them saints in Washington.
Omega

OLDRAT

12-17-2003, 10:24 AM

Yes, Miss HBJ I have started it and it looks promising.
My son was in Air Force Intel from 1990 thru 2000, some of the
stuff he talks about now and then is astounding, and in
most cases hard to believe. In some instances, he worked
directly with CIA operatives and admistration geeks and what
stories these folks have told him about how the Clinton Admin.
pulled the rug out from under our own CIA and fed foreign
operatives to the wolves.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 10:37 AM

Blown said: "Funny you said the Canaidians would steal them if our drug companies wouldn't sell them at a reasonable price???"
You are so stupid. When the Canadian government threatens to allow Canadian companies produce and sell American Drugs created, patented and owned by American Drug Companies unless the American Drug Companies sell it at wholesale costs, and then the American Drug Companies give in order to at least make some money off the extortion threat forced on them--THAT'S THEFT!!! YOU IDIOT. Get my facts straight? Jesus, it's like I'm talking to children here.
There is a massive investigation right now by the US Government who is looking into Canadian Pharmacies in Canada that have opened up for the sole purpose of buying cheap American drugs imported into Canada and then selling them back to American customers online and through mail order. Since Canada has price controls and has blackmailed the American Companies into selling at far less then market value (price controls), these pharmacies are buying drugs at extorted prices only to sell them Americans looking for discounts. It's extortion and these pharmacies are exploiting the system. These drugs are produced in America, then shipped to canada at price controlled prices, then they're sold and shipped back to America to American customers! Does that make sense? Do you not see the ****ing extortion!?
And let's get another thing straight, Blown. Can you tell me what drug prices should be at if they're too high? Do you know how much it costs to discover produce a drug? Do you know Pfizer's and Merk's R&D costs, their Revenue and Expenses, and thier profit? Do you know how much they lose by selling at price controlled prices to Canada? Do you know how much they lose by foreign pirates who produce thier formulas without permission?
But the main question is: How much should a life saving drug invented today cost when yesterday it didn't exist? And don't you think controlling the rewards for invention will destroy invention alltogether?
Here's an example of what I'm talking about so you can "picture" it--like I said, I feel like I'm talking to a child. I have a very close freind who's father has renal desease, end stage. This man would have been on a dialisis machine ten years ago, waiting to die, because once you go on dialisis, you have 2-5 years at best. Understood so far? This man is not on dialisis right now...because of new drug therapies. In fact, his kidney function is improving! In the last five years, new drug therapies have actually increase kidney function in some patients. The law up until five years ago was that any kidney function lost to renal disease is lost forever, like brain damage, unreperable. But new "greed" inspired drugs were CREATED by "capitalist fat cat" AMERICAN drug companies, thank god, and probably have saved this man's life. At the bare minimum, he's looking at 15-20 years more becuase of these drugs alone, not the 2-5 years to live he would have to been told without these drugs.
Now I ask you, sir: HOW MUCH SHOULD THESE DRUGS COST!!!???
How the **** can someone demand lifesaving, liveprolonging and quality-of-life improving drug...without paying for it???!!! Nothing is free in life. Somebody has to pay for it. Don't be stupid.
And as to your other anti-american replies on this thread since last night; I'll respond soon.

gnarley

12-17-2003, 11:02 AM

JakeAisA, maybe you've been talking to children to long? I think that members here get it. You may make some good points but many might disagree with the information they have.
You said "Canadian companies produce and sell American Drugs created, patented and owned by American Drug Companies unless the American Drug Companies sell it at wholesale costs"
And you also said;
"Do you know how much it costs to discover produce a drug? Do you know Pfizer's and Merk's R&D costs, their Revenue and Expenses, and their profit? Do you know how much they lose by selling at price controlled prices to Canada?"
Do you ??? I don't think anyone does & how do they determine those numbers? I've worked in accounting departments before; it all depends on how they write those numbers and Merk or Pfizer certainly arent going to tell the IRS how they do their books.
So prove it, post your sources, put up or shut up.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
I dont see that happening for a few reasons,
first since our economy is based on a war machine and the ussr is no more we need a cold war and he is it.
secondly how would that look to his bin ladens family if bush whacks him since they fronted him money to start his oil bidness??
Blown, you are so stupid. You hurl lies becuase your a Bush Hater, but your lies don't make any sense. First, do you know how many Bin Ladens there are in the Bin Laden family? You do, because you're a Bush burner, but I'll remind everyone of your lies about the Bush/Bin Laden connection. Osama Bin Laden has something like over 50 brothers and sisters alone! The Bin Laden family is huge. The Bin Laden family is Saudi Arabia what the Rockeffellers were to America. If you're an oil man, you buy it from where? The middle east, right? If you buy oil from the Middle East, you know the Saudi's, and the Bin Laden's are the Saudi's. They had unfettered access to the royal family, they were in everything. To know the Bin Ladens is not incriminating. Not when the family is such a huge influence in Saudi Arabia and the Immediate family has almost 100 members! Jesus, think about that. The averag American family is 4.5 (Mother, Father, 2.5 children).
Now, the other point. What are you trying to say about Osama and Bush anyway. You sound as if you think Bush let Osama kill 3,000 Americans. Like there's some kind of conspiracy. Right? Why bring it up if there wasn't a purpose. If I'm to accept your premise, why the **** did George Bush wipe out the Taliban, two thirds of the known Al Quada leadership, send them to Guantanimo Bay for extensive innterrogation and torture, and why is Osama hiding in a ****ing cave in some mountain range like the pig he is?
You're sore becuase every Democrat pussy you have ever voted for has been invalidated by Presidents like Bush and Reagan, and you know the future just holds more of the same.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by gnarley
JakeAisA, maybe you've been talking to children to long? I think that members here get it. You may make some good points but many might disagree with the information they have.
You said "Canadian companies produce and sell American Drugs created, patented and owned by American Drug Companies unless the American Drug Companies sell it at wholesale costs"
And you also said;
"Do you know how much it costs to discover produce a drug? Do you know Pfizer's and Merk's R&D costs, their Revenue and Expenses, and their profit? Do you know how much they lose by selling at price controlled prices to Canada?"
Do you ??? I don't think anyone does & how do they determine those numbers? I've worked in accounting departments before; it all depends on how they write those numbers and Merk or Pfizer certainly arent going to tell the IRS how they do their books.
So prove it, post your sources, put up or shut up.
I don't know the numbers, and I don't claim to. The point is to prove that YOU don't know them so how the hell can you claim drugs cost too much? You missed the point, gnarley, you say something is too expensive if you don't know the costs to produce it, right? What is "cheap" and "expensive" depends on objective facts about the costs, demand and supply; not your subjective whim. Try again, though, please. YOU TELL ME WHAT THESE ARE AND WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT YOUR PREMISE THAT DRUGS IN AMERICA ARE EXPENSIVE (ABNORMALLY) AND WHY WE SHOULD ENSLAVE AMERICAN DRUG COMPANIES?

Laughlin Drunk

12-17-2003, 11:14 AM

I am forced to agree with BustAiaA. Consider this scenario:
Blown becomes head of the UN and passes a law that all drugs must be sold at cost and no profit is allowed to me made on prescription medication. Great! All the old people jump (or think about jumping) for joy. Drugs are cheap. Life is good. Right?
What about people with illnesses with no cure yet? How many new drugs are going to come out if companies know that you cant make a profit by selling drugs? None. Would there be a flu shot next year? No. Would AIDS ever get cured? No. Cancer? No. Heart Disease? No.
This is the ultimate extreme in communist drug policy. But everything functions according to the law of demand. If the willingness to pay is zero, there will be no supply (who would actually work to supply something for nothing?). Right now, were are somewhere in the middle. If you artificially reduce prices (and more importantly, expected return on R&D investment) you will reduce the willingness of businesses to invest in the development of new drugs. That means that less new drugs will come out every year. That means that more people will DIE waiting for their cure.
If you want to reduce the price of drugs, reduce the hoops the FDA makes drug companies jump through. Yes, it probably makes the side effects of available drugs reduced, but if you are dieing anyway, shouldnt you have the choice of taking that risk. I mean, whats the worst that can happen?

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 11:33 AM

Laughlin Drunk sounds like an economist...and he put it straight. Thanks dude.

gnarley

12-17-2003, 11:58 AM

Drug companies poor a lot of profit back into R&D, who knows how much??? They don't tell us, hence that profit is never seen because it is lost in the books as a cost of doing business, and its smart business.
I should also not that I am also a card carrying Republican. I lean to the right but not the far right. And I despise tree hugging lettuce headed left wing Commies.

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Laughlin Drunk sounds like an economist...and he put it straight. Thanks dude.
Well since you cant keep it nice and calling me stupid and a child, nigga please you need to get your head out of your ass and explain to me why there is a 300 to 400 percent mark up on drugs, I am all about making money but ****ing people over just for the sake of cash aint my way unlike you. Maybe if you got off your ass and stopped watching wrestling and cnn you might learn about the real world. HO and btw I am a card carrying member of the rebulican party dipshit.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 12:17 PM

Hey guys, being a card carrying Republican has nothing to do with it. I apoligize for the child and idiot remark, too. But Republicans are pretty bad when it comes to protecting businesses' rights too, just not as bad as Liberals.
But look here, businesses can't screw anybody in America when it comes to price. Screwing means you're selling something other then what you claim it is, you don't deliver what you're supposed to, or you've defrauded someone. But setting a price of your own choice, for your own product, is called freedom. You cannot screw somebody on price. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product. If you want a life saving drug, the price is the price set by the owner of the product. There's no such thing as a "fair" price that is different then what you and the company you're buying from agree to. It's called trade and it requires mutual agreement. If you cannot mutually agree, go somewhere else or buy it. If you cannot afford it, then too bad. What's the alternative? The French system? Ever wondered why America has a monopoly on new drugs? Becuase we regulate drug companies profit the least. That said, our medical system is still one of the highest regulated industries in America! Think of the drugs would have been discovered, the procedures that would have been developed and the lives that would have been saved if we regulated the industry less! It's simple. Invention requires freedom. Regulation destroys invention and in medicine that translates to death. If you don't like the price of something, you're not being screwd.

Dave C

12-17-2003, 12:19 PM

Madeline Half-Bright was on Fox last night and even she has said in the past "everything" that Bush has said about Saddam.
Also, yes we supported Saddam in the 1980's when his enemy was Iran and before we knew he was a maniac. Times and geopolitics change but hind-sight is 20-20.
Even Albright admitted that it wasn't our fault that he used WMD on his own people.
(its like saying the gun killed the person. However it requires that someone pull the trigger)

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Hey guys, being a card carrying Republican has nothing to do with it. I apoligize for the child and idiot remark, too. But Republicans are pretty bad when it comes to protecting businesses' rights too, just not as bad as Liberals.
But look here, businesses can't screw anybody in America when it comes to price. Screwing means you're selling something other then what you claim it is, you don't deliver what you're supposed to, or you've defrauded someone. But setting a price of your own choice, for your own product, is called freedom. You cannot screw somebody on price. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product. If you want a life saving drug, the price is the price set by the owner of the product. There's no such thing as a "fair" price that is different then what you and the company you're buying from agree to. It's called trade and it requires mutual agreement. If you cannot mutually agree, go somewhere else or buy it. If you cannot afford it, then too bad. What's the alternative? The French system? Ever wondered why America has a monopoly on new drugs? Becuase we regulate drug companies profit the least. That said, our medical system is still one of the highest regulated industries in America! Think of the drugs would have been discovered, the procedures that would have been developed and the lives that would have been saved if we regulated the industry less! It's simple. Invention requires freedom. Regulation destroys invention and in medicine that translates to death. If you don't like the price of something, you're not being screwd.
Ok, cool, but that being said if you need a life saving drug and they know it dont you think they might jack up the price cuz they know you need it??

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Hey guys, being a card carrying Republican has nothing to do with it. I apoligize for the child and idiot remark, too. But Republicans are pretty bad when it comes to protecting businesses' rights too, just not as bad as Liberals.
But look here, businesses can't screw anybody in America when it comes to price. Screwing means you're selling something other then what you claim it is, you don't deliver what you're supposed to, or you've defrauded someone. But setting a price of your own choice, for your own product, is called freedom. You cannot screw somebody on price. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product. If you want a life saving drug, the price is the price set by the owner of the product. There's no such thing as a "fair" price that is different then what you and the company you're buying from agree to. It's called trade and it requires mutual agreement. If you cannot mutually agree, go somewhere else or buy it. If you cannot afford it, then too bad. What's the alternative? The French system? Ever wondered why America has a monopoly on new drugs? Becuase we regulate drug companies profit the least. That said, our medical system is still one of the highest regulated industries in America! Think of the drugs would have been discovered, the procedures that would have been developed and the lives that would have been saved if we regulated the industry less! It's simple. Invention requires freedom. Regulation destroys invention and in medicine that translates to death. If you don't like the price of something, you're not being screwd.
ever heard of price gouging? the govt. doesn't regulate gas prices but they can step in when and if the prices get out of control. gas is considered a neccesity as prescription drugs are for some folks. in some cases drugs are more of a necessity than fuel. so splain that to me please!!!
Omega

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-17-2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Dave C
Even Albright admitted that it wasn't our fault that he used WMD on his own people.
(its like saying the gun killed the person. However it requires that someone pull the trigger)
even though we provided him with the weapons in bulk? so by what you are saying if someone were to give a kid a gun and he went to school and shot up a bunch of his classmates the person that gave him the gun should not be accountable in any way??
Omega

Seadog

12-17-2003, 12:33 PM

A democracy is an attempt to balance the socialist and capitalist forces in a society. No intelligent person is against the companies making a fair profit. What is getting everyone mad, is that they are making obscene profits and then paying the politicians off. THAT is immoral and illegal. Same with the insurance companies, HMOs, lawyers and hospitals. There are areas that have got to be reevaluated as to how to best serve the public. We cannot go suing everyone when things do not go our way, but we should also hold service providers to a high moral standard.
We have peope of all ages that have to decide on how much medical care they can get. We also have a bunch that take advantage of loopholes to get free care at the expense of the paying customers. We have children that may die due to the lack of expensive treatment and we have career criminals that will get to spend more time in jail because they get that expensive treatment.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Blown 472
Ok, cool, but that being said if you need a life saving drug and they know it dont you think they might jack up the price cuz they know you need it??
Companies don't set prices that way. They set the price at the price where thier marginal revenue equals thier marginal cost. That means that they try to price the product so they sell whatever amount that is required to make the most money. Since each product is unique in terms of costs and market demand, the price set is unique. These two factors can be graphed and trust me, these companies graph them. They don't try to sell as much as they can, they try to make the most money in the end. These companies, like all companies, don't think about thier profit per unit, they think about thier total earnings. If that means the factors require a low profit per unit and they must sell a shit ton of units, then that's what they'll do. If it means they'll only sell 100 units all year but they'll have to price it high, then that's what they'll do. The idea is the size of the bank account at the end of the year, not size of profit on each deal. Think about it, why wouldn't they raise the price to $50,000 per pill for viagra? Because they wouldn't sell any, right? They'd lose money (and remember, money that could have been made is a cost). If they raise the price too much, they won't sell enough units to maximise the bank account balance. Sure, the units they do sell will have huge profit margins, but who cares? Look at Wal-Mart, they lose money on many items and at best they make very little on the rest, that business requires that type of pricing and supply to satisfy the given demand. The opposite would be Ferrari, they make very few cars but they make a shit ton of money per vehicle. But they can't drop the prices of a Ferrari because much of the high $ price tag is knowing that only people who can afford $200,000 for an automobile will have them. Ferrari would make far less if they sold them for only $75,000 because the buyer won't appear to be as exclusive as someone who paid $200,000 for it. Ferrari would go out of business. It depends on the product and the market, really. But companies never care about profit per unit or per market or ever per product. They think about the size of the TOTAL EARNINGS at the end of the year. Would you rather have costs of $100,000 per year and have your earnings be $50,000 when it's all said and done? Or would you rather have costs of $1 million and have your earnings be $250,000 when it's all said and done? I'll take the 200,000 extra dollars, thank you. In the end, I don't really care what my profit per unit is and neither do companies.

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 01:01 PM

Humm, one thing thou wal mart does not own anything they sell, they only put it on the shelf and the compay that made the product gets paid only after the item sells and wal mart takes a cut on it, they dont lose money why do you think they can put up a million stores?

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 01:12 PM

right, you're talking about consignment. I beleive Wal-Mart never owns the product, technically. They create a contract with a supplier to put the product on the shelf, then when the product is sold, Wal-Mart pays the supplier. So, technically, Wal-Mart never actually owned the product; it was owned by the supplier then only after it went out the door with the customer, the new owner, does Wal-Mart own it. But the principle is the same. Wal-Mart and the Supplies set the price to eachother and the consumer so that they make the most $ at the end of the year, not per unit sale. Why would they care about thier profit per unit? The only time you would ever increase prices is if you knew that your quantity demanded (units sold) wouldn't fall so far as to cause your bottom line to actually fall instead of rise. But if you can increase your price and make more money...then you've been underpricing! Conversely, if you can drop your price and increase the quantity sold so much as to help your bottom line in the end...then you've overpricing!

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Seadog
A democracy is an attempt to balance the socialist and capitalist forces in a society. No intelligent person is against the companies making a fair profit. What is getting everyone mad, is that they are making obscene profits and then paying the politicians off. THAT is immoral and illegal. Same with the insurance companies, HMOs, lawyers and hospitals. There are areas that have got to be reevaluated as to how to best serve the public. We cannot go suing everyone when things do not go our way, but we should also hold service providers to a high moral standard.
We have peope of all ages that have to decide on how much medical care they can get. We also have a bunch that take advantage of loopholes to get free care at the expense of the paying customers. We have children that may die due to the lack of expensive treatment and we have career criminals that will get to spend more time in jail because they get that expensive treatment.
Seadog,
Listen to your first statement: "A democracy is an attempt to balance the socialist and capitalist forces in a society."
This is a contradiction. Socialism is government owned and controlled production and markets (it is not free). Capitalism is the private ownership and regulation of production and markets (it's the definition of freedom). How can you balance tryanny (socialsim) and freedom (capitalism) and have a free society? If you have any tyranny, you're not free.
Furthermore, I ask you what a "fair" profit is? What is an "obscene" profit? And when some of the biggest unions, "consumer groups", and lawyers lobby to regulate business, why is it wrong for the business to lobby back? Should companies just sit around while group after group lobby politicians to loot thier businesses? Why does the profit motive bar you from self-defense?

Freak

12-17-2003, 01:21 PM

HI ALL :)
The Canadian government can put a ceiling on how much pharmas are allowed to charge, but they can't force our pharmas to sell them their product. If it wasn't worth their time to be selling to Canada, they wouldn't. It's not that they are losing money in Canada, it's just that their profits there are smaller than in the US. If the pharma companies were not recovering all costs, they would simply stop selling drugs to Canada.
The problem is this: you know as well as the rest of us, all three federal house's are being bought and sold by large contributions from drug companies.
I agree that the cost of a pharmaceutical should not be an issue if it is the only thing available that will work. People always seem to be complaining about the costs of drugs and demanding generics, but they don't give any consideration to the cost involved in developing new drugs. We're not talking the final manufacturing process but the tens of years of research and clinical studies involved in taking something from an idea to an actual proven product, not to mention the added cost of all the failed products along the way, the ones that seemed to have good potential and then failed in clinical studies...somebody has to pay for those too, and sometimes there is no indication until that point that a drug isn't going to pan out to suggest cutting that program. When the company that footed the bill for all the R&D then loses profits to a competitor who makes a generic version without having to pay all the costs of development, the reality is it's going to drive up the cost of a new drug to try to recover some of the costs early before the competition can undercut them when the patent expires or they do some sly end-run around the patent.
. The reason we even wonder whether or not new, and potentially better, treatments should or should not be used is because the pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever they like, and justify the fees with these carefully orchestrated marketing strategies. Would I pay so much money to save my husband/wife? Sure. But should I? Well, maybe not...particularly considering that widespread health insurance is on the decline as companies can no longer afford health care for their employees, given the price gouging. The average citizen, not getting coverage because they are self-employed, or work in a small business with no benefits, cannot afford coverage, and the economy is at a standstill, in many ways because companies that have a health insurance plan in place, and dictated by a union contract, cannot afford to hire new workers. The rising costs of health insurance is directly attributable to the drug companies tricking doctors and patients into thinking the more expensive treatments are necessary, and worth their cost. Eli Lilly, in a frightening effort to promote a more expensive insulin delivery system (same ol' insulin, new packaging material) actually stopped shipping bottled insulin to Canada to force the citizenry to purchase the more expensive, but unnecessary, alternative of insulin cartridges. They simply couldn't create the "buzz" needed to get people to think cartridges were a necessary expense in insulin delivery. Most US health insurance companies do not cover cartridges because they are needless, and more expensive. The plans that do, unsurprisingly, cost more in premiums.
When new, expensive, treatments become par for the course it hurts everyone who is struggling for basic coverage: the kind that gets your child to the hospital when they have a dangerously high fever, or when you fall of the ladder fixing the roof, or when you run out of the eyedrops you've taken since you were a child, to treat glaucoma, or a course of antibiotics when you have strep throat.
Are new treatments super, delightful, and beneficial? Sure.
Are they worth their cost? Maybe not. The drug companies can set the cost at whatever they like. In the end, it is not the consumer who decides "my loved one's life is worth Z amount of dollars" It is the drug company. And though I am delighted that the drug company thinks that I am worth so very much, I'd just as soon see them lower their opinion of my worth. They can afford it.

MJ19

12-17-2003, 01:29 PM

Curious if anyone else is like me :confused:
I have a "Length Limit" when it comes to posts
The posts that are too long or not broken up into paragraphs are skipped completely. :cool:

Freak

12-17-2003, 01:35 PM

I agree I tend to skip or just skim through the long ones but yet insist on creating long ones. I need help. :)

Dave C

12-17-2003, 01:43 PM

I know one thing about new drugs. 95% are created in the U.S.
Why... because you can recoupe your investment here.
so if we place any unnecessary restrictions (like Europe does) then we can forget about new drug development.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 01:50 PM

FREAK:
Did you read the earlier posts about how companies post? Companies don't engage in "price gouging" and stay in business for long. They care about thier bottom line, not thier profit margin. Think about it.
And what are you talking about Pharmecutical companies "buying off" congress, the President and the Judiciary? Do you congressman and senators are changing thier votes becuase Merck gave them money? That's not how it works. They give money to get these politicians elected, not to change votes on bills. And besides, most lobbiests get screwed by politicians anyway. It's like Willy Brown said accurately, and I paraphrase: Being in politic means to take money from your donors only to turn around and screw them. Do you ever hear of any congressmen making votes in congress that is totally out of line with what they've said about the issue before? No. Absolutely not. What lobbiests do is give money to people who will be kind to thier interests. Then the politicians use that money to buy bigger megaphones. In the end, they still have to convince the voting public to vote for them!!!

Freak

12-17-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Dave C
I know one thing about new drugs. 95% are created in the U.S.
Why... because you can recoupe your investment. - by selling to billions throughout countries.

Mrs. Bordsmnj

12-17-2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by MJ19
Curious if anyone else is like me :confused:
I have a "Length Limit" when it comes to posts
The posts that are too long or not broken up into paragraphs are skipped completely. :cool:
LMAO!! :D
I totally agree!

Dave C

12-17-2003, 01:56 PM

I meant that they were created under US patents...

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Bordsmnj
LMAO!! :D
I totally agree!
HEY!!! SOME OF US HERE LIKE HEARING OURSELVES TALK!!! Point taken, hehehe.

Dave C

12-17-2003, 02:04 PM

No we DID NOT provide weapons in bulk to IRAQ??... Thats spin!!!!!
It wasn't us.. it was China, USSR, Russia & France..... see chart on link.
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Freak

12-17-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
FREAK:
Did you read the earlier posts about how companies post? Companies don't engage in "price gouging" and stay in business for long. They care about thier bottom line, not thier profit margin. Think about it.
And what are you talking about Pharmecutical companies "buying off" congress, the President and the Judiciary? Do you congressman and senators are changing thier votes becuase Merck gave them money? That's not how it works. They give money to get these politicians elected, not to change votes on bills. And besides, most lobbiests get screwed by politicians anyway. It's like Willy Brown said accurately, and I paraphrase: Being in politic means to take money from your donors only to turn around and screw them. Do you ever hear of any congressmen making votes in congress that is totally out of line with what they've said about the issue before? No. Absolutely not. What lobbiests do is give money to people who will be kind to thier interests. Then the politicians use that money to buy bigger megaphones. In the end, they still have to convince the voting public to vote for them!!!
Yep I read. I dont think all companies have the same business practices and some bad ones do stay in business. Maybe because of a monopoly or whatever. I feel gouging happens. Some get caught, some don't. I guess in the end we can debate on what happens behind closed doors of companies and political offices, but for the most part only a select few really know. Now I have to go do some updates on my RAID arrays so later. Its been stimulating. .

Freak

12-17-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Dave C
I meant that they were created under US patents...
Understood and agreed.

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 02:23 PM

Just wonder if anyone noticed that the Former CEO of Eli Lilly was chosen by Bush to be head of the US BUDGET AND FINANCE, and was a key man in creating the Medicare bill.
Who knows why Bush chose this particular guy to run the United States finances (a payback perhaps?), but his ineptness at this job was glaringly obvious. After the most horrific budget-management record in history ( in just one year we went from the highest surplus ever to the highest deficit ever) Mitch Daniels resigned this past May.
Quite a number top people from the drug industry are now running cabinet posts, selected by Bush, and many of their sub chairs still own drug company stocks.
So, they don't have to "buy" off our government anymore, they now ARE our government.
Drug companies were the # 2 contributors to his campaign and inauguration (Right behind the oil industry), so you can see why they would be rewarded with high positions in the US government.

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
Just wonder if anyone noticed that the Former CEO of Eli Lilly was chosen by Bush to be head of the US BUDGET AND FINANCE, and was a key man in drafting the Medicare bill.
Quite a number top people from the drug industry are now running cabinet posts, selected by Bush, and many of their sub chairs still own drug company stocks.
So, they don't have to "buy" off our government anymore, they now ARE our government.
Drug companies were the # 2 contributors to his campaign and inauguration (Right behind the oil industry), so you can see why they would be rewarded with high positions in the US government.
like I said people with money dont run for office for the betterment of mankind, there are other motives and if people could read thru the shit they could see it. How often is abortion brought up during elections but nothing done about it, hows bout health care? you name it they spew it get put in office and set on their own agendas.
Kinda like al gore bitching about cars but having a shit load of shares in a oil producing company.:rolleyes:

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
Just wonder if anyone noticed that the Former CEO of Eli Lilly was chosen by Bush to be head of the US BUDGET AND FINANCE.
Quite a number top people from the drug industry are now running cabinet posts, selected by Bush, and many of their sub chairs still own drug company stocks.
So, they don't have to "buy" off our government anymore, they now ARE our government.
Drug companies were the # 2 contributors to his campaign and inauguration (Right behind the oil industry), so you can see why they would be rewarded with high positions in the US government.
Would you rather Bush appoint Football Mascots instead of businessmen? You assume that a CEO is bad becuase he is a CEO. You assume a Pharmecutal Businessman is fraud becuase he was in the medical industry. You assume an Oil Businessman is a rapist because he was in the Oil Business. Why? Did Eli Lilly murder a bunch of people that I didn't hear about? What Oil company robbed a bank?
Personally, I think working for a pharmecutical company makes you perfectly qualified to work in government--you know first hand where government hurts the industry, patients and business. And you know how to run a successful organization when the entire world is set on putting you out of business!!! It's even worse for oil businessmen in terms of the public attack on them. I think these guys no how to be successful because they're under the most scrutiny....and they get the job done anyway!
Think of a country that doesn't have business and I'll show you tyrrany. When the businessmen go, all has already been lost.

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 02:47 PM

Does said bidness man have the peoples interests in mind or just his own?? as I recall by the people for the people rings a bell

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 03:01 PM

Does his success as a businessman revoke his citizenship? Remember, this country was founded by businessmen: John Adams, Ben Franklyn, John Hancock, etc., etc. They run successful organizations and they know the how government affects trade. They're all applied econonomists. Like I said before, why wouldn't you want a businessmen to regulate business? Would someone who has never been in business be better? That's like handing Microsoft over to my grandmother who's business carreer ended at answering phones. Think about the assumptions you're making about businessmen. Businessmen make this country great. Without businessmen, the risk takers and producers, there's nothing here.

Blown 472

12-17-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Does his success as a businessman revoke his citizenship? Remember, this country was founded by businessmen: John Adams, Ben Franklyn, John Hancock, etc., etc. They run successful organizations and they know the how government affects trade. They're all applied econonomists. Like I said before, why wouldn't you want a businessmen to regulate business? Would someone who has never been in business be better? That's like handing Microsoft over to my grandmother who's business carreer ended at answering phones. Think about the assumptions you're making about businessmen. Businessmen make this country great. Without businessmen, the risk takers and producers, there's nothing here.
bidness men are fine, ones that kick millions of dollars for a campain I have a problem with. This is a riot and lets keep it nice edgy but nice talk to you tomorrow off to drink now and curse the white collar scum, kidding.

gnarley

12-17-2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Would you rather Bush appoint Football Mascots instead of businessmen?
I have a problem with any appointment if the appointee was connected somehow & received that appointment via a donation from the company profits or was a lobbyist. I also have a problem if the appointee has any stock in a company that may benefit from any agreement made by the appointee. There is so much conflict of interest going on, the good ole boys network is alive and well.
So would I rather a football mascot be appointed? Well, maybe they might be able to perform as good of a job, and it would be for the people & not their own back pocket or other friends in the good ole boy network. What real work do these former lobbyists or donators do once they get appointed? I might be going out on a limb here but I think they basically get paid to make decisions based on other peoples work? I think a football mascot could do that also.

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 03:28 PM

If this man had so many fabulous qualities, then how could he have been at the helm when our Nation collapsed from the having highest surplus ever, to having the highest deficit ever? Or did Bush actually have a hold of the wheel?
IMO, a football mascot might have been a better choice than Mitchell. ......Apparently Bush thought so too. Or at least wanted us to think Mitchell was at fault. At any rate, Mitchell is gone..but at least vaccine makers got their protections they wanted.
Do you think Drug Company Executives are qualified for the job because they are excellent businessmen or are they just good at lobbying and offering excellent contributions to the right politicians?
Right in the middle of the mercury/vaccine/autism scandal, guess what mysteriously "pops" into the Patriot Act at the last minute? Lo and behold -- it's vaccine maker protections that even exclude civil lawsuits for even "fraud and criminal negligence"! Wonder which fabulously corrupt bidnessman pulled that one off!?
What about energy and oil companies?
Was Kenneth Lay the best manager, or was he just the best at deception, power and influence? Some of the biggest business scandals come right out of Bush's neighborhood. Even his own brother Neil Bush got caught with his hands dirty in a unscrupulous S&L bidness deal.
I trust NONE of them.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
I have a problem with any appointment if the appointee was connected somehow & received that appointment via a donation from the company profits or was a lobbyist. I also have a problem if the appointee has any stock in a company that may benefit from any agreement made by the appointee. There is so much conflict of interest going on, the good ole boys network is alive and well.
So would I rather a football mascot be appointed? Well, maybe they might be able to perform as good of a job, and it would be for the people & not their own back pocket or other friends in the good ole boy network. What real work do these former lobbyists or donators do once they get appointed? I might be going out on a limb here but I think they basically get paid to make decisions based on other peoples work? I think a football mascot could do that also.
You have no idea what it takes to run a business because if you did, you would have some respect for dedication, the courage and intelligence required to do it.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
If this man had so many fabulous qualities, then how could he have been at the helm when our Nation collapsed from the having highest surplus ever, to having the highest deficit ever? Or did Bush actually have a hold of the wheel?
IMO, a football mascot might have been a better choice than Mitchell. ......Apparently Bush thought so too. Or at least wanted us to think Mitchell was at fault. At any rate, Mitchell is gone..but at least vaccine makers got their protections they wanted.
Do you think Drug Company Executives are qualified for the job because they are excellent businessmen or are they just good at lobbying and offering excellent contributions to the right politicians?
Right in the middle of the mercury/vaccine/autism scandal, guess what mysteriously "pops" into the Patriot Act at the last minute? Lo and behold -- it's vaccine maker protections that even exclude civil lawsuits for even "fraud and criminal negligence"! Wonder which fabulously corrupt bidnessman pulled that one off!?
What about energy and oil companies?
Was Kenneth Lay the best manager, or was he just the best at deception, power and influence? Some of the biggest business scandals come right out of Bush's neighborhood. Even his own brother Neil Bush got caught with his hands dirty in a unscrupulous S&L bidness deal.
I trust NONE of them.
Good, move to France then.

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Good, move to France then.
People want to end this filthy corruption of our government which is so obvious, and your suggestion is "move to France"?
I got something better -- How about we just vote for honest people who vow to stop these endless corporate payoffs and trade-offs?

Dave C

12-17-2003, 03:38 PM

I have to agree with business men should be in charge of regulating business as long as there is not a conflict of interest.
How is someone who does not no much about a particular business going to keep up with those that are experts in that business? The answer is their not going to keep up.

Dave C

12-17-2003, 03:44 PM

I dont want to defend the pharmaceutical companies because they have a great deal here in the U.S. but,
What incentive do they have to devote 20 years of R&D into a prospective drug that might never net them a single dollar of revenue if it doesnt work or is not approved by the FDA?
I dont have a problem with them receiving 17 years of exorbitant profits for the successful drugs to compensate them for cost of the failed ones.
But they should honor their 17 year patent and let the generics lower the price then.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
People want to end this filthy corruption of our government which is so obvious, and your suggestion is "move to France"?
I got something better -- How about we just vote for honest people who vow to stop these endless corporate payoffs and trade-offs?
Have you been awake for the past two years? Corrupt businessmen have gone to jail; corrupt businessmen during the S&L scandals went to jail; businesmen who commit crimes go to jail. There are hundreds of thousands of CEO's and Presidents in this country and they supply everything you consume, everyday. You sound silly. Honest? What corruption are you talking about? Because it's not "obvious" to me and it's not "obvious" to the majority of Americans (the same majority that is going to re-elect George Bush next November). You don't get America.

gnarley

12-17-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
You have no idea what it takes to run a business because if you did, you would have some respect for dedication, the courage and intelligence required to do it.
Don't assume you know so much.
I have started & run my own business in the past, prior to a life changing career ending car accident, I have also been part of the senior management for a company I worked for and I am considering a new venture now ;)
Be careful of what you say & how you say it, you belittle yourself without even knowing it, by assuming you know whom you are talking to Jake.
YOU need to pay more attention to what is written. I never belittled businessmen in any way shape or form in my previous post, read it carefully. I made my statements specifically about appointments and appointee's that have conflicts of interest & padding their own pockets or others that may benefit from influence.

JakeAisA

12-17-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by gnarley
Don't assume you know so much.
I have started & run my own business in the past, prior to a life changing career ending car accident, I have also been part of the senior management for a company I worked for and I am considering a new venture now ;)
Be careful of what you say & how you say it, you belittle yourself without even knowing it, by assuming you know whom you are talking to Jake.
YOU need to pay more attention to what is written. I never belittled businessmen in any way shape or form in my previous post, read it carefully. I made my statements specifically about appointments and appointee's that have conflicts of interest & padding their own pockets or others that may benefit from influence.
gnarley,
After reading you post before, I realize I was responding to the wrong person. I apoligize. I meant to respond to MS BK.

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Have you been awake for the past two years? Corrupt businessmen have gone to jail; corrupt businessmen during the S&L scandals went to jail; businesmen who commit crimes go to jail.
Oh really? Who goes to jail?? I'm not sleeping - I'm keeping tabs on this whole crooked family. I'll bet Saddam Hussein goes to trial long before Kenneth Lay ever sees the court house steps. Remember Kenneth? Dad's business friend?
And what about brother Neil ?
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-03-16/pols_feature3.html
The Austin Chronicle
March 16, 2003
"In 1990, Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which actually cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million. And the fine wasn't exactly paid by Neil Bush. A Republican fundraiser set up a fund to help defer costs Neil incurred in his S&L dealings."

Dr. Eagle

12-17-2003, 07:38 PM

Miss BK or should I say Catmando, you are really a liberal idiot. WTF makes you tick?:confused: :frown: :confused: :confused: :frown: :confused: :frown: :confused: :frown:

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 07:44 PM

And there plenty of people who know me and I have owned my own marine business - deep in the heart of Texas, believe it or not. Actually that's where G W rubbed me the wrong way to begin with, back in 1997....
Shortly after stating that he was not going to allow the government to regulate the price of Natural gas, he told all of us oil-rich Texans that he was going into politics, just like his dad. So he sold his oil well and he sold his professional baseball team and launched his bid for Governor.
To win in Texas, all he had to do was promise certain groups of people loads of money and he was a shoo-in. He also promised he'd fight against abortion. By announcing his "Pure Christianity" he securely locked in the Christian vote and that made all the difference.
Sounded good to me too!
Up until I realized we'd all been hood-winked, and within a year my kids were being told they could not attend Texas schools unless they got some bogus new chickenpox shot -- a vaccine made from ABORTIONS!
So here was the man who told the state he was anti-abortion, was helping Merck push bogus vaccines for benign childhood problems.. Varivax, produced by MERCK - developed from aborted baby lung tissue...
it was mandated and I couldnt do a thing about it. If you want to look into this yourself, go to Children of God for Life, www.cogforlife.org .
Then he did the same thing to become President -- hawking to everybody that he was "Pro Life". :rolleyes:
I absolutely hate being lied to.

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Miss BK or should I say Catmando, you are really a liberal idiot. WTF makes you tick?:confused: :frown: :confused: :confused: :frown: :confused: :frown: :confused: :frown:
The stuff I posted was FACTS.
IMO, only an "idiot" would close their eyes and pretend it never happened, not produce anything to refute it, and just start calling the other person names.
Here is more food for thought -- each of these were spoken by G W Bush in recent times, and you can see he spins his answers -
Sometimes he says they are "unborn children" the other times he calls them "embryos". The words he uses are completely altered if he is seeking Christian votes, or if he's helping out his drug maker buddies;
1. "Our nation should set a great goal, that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law. George W. Bush, Jan 2002. (Washington Post)
2. "There is a precedent. The only licensed live chickenpox vaccine used in the United States was developed, in part, from cells derived from research involving human embryos. Researchers first grew the virus in embryonic lung cells, which were later cloned and grown in two previously existing cell lines. Many ethical and religious leaders agree that even if the history of this vaccine raises ethical questions, its current use does not." George W. Bush, Aug 2001 (in response to letter from Campaign for Ethical Vaccines, New York Times,)
In #2, Bush is actually incorrect about where the chickenpox vaccine derived from. The cells actually came from aborted fetal lung tissue. A claim you can find on Merck's product insert.

Dr. Eagle

12-17-2003, 08:05 PM

What friggin ever..don't go away mad, just go away......

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 08:06 PM

"VARIVAX (Merck) was developed with the use of aborted fetuses. It uses both the human cell lines, named WI-38 (Wistar Institute) and MRC-5 (Medical Research Council). The vaccine contains residual components of their DNA and protein. The cell lines were derived from the lung tissue of an aborted female at 3 months gestation and an aborted male at 14 weeks gestation. The cells of these fetuses were then developed in a lab culture to produce several vaccines."
Then Texas Gov. Bush made this vaccine mandatory to all school children in Texas in 1997, during his governorship. The profit MERCK received as a result of this mandate was rumored to be around $200 per child.

Dr. Eagle

12-17-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Good, move to France then.
I friggin SECOND that one!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Dr. Eagle

12-17-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
"VARIVAX (Merck) was developed with the use of aborted fetuses. It uses both the human cell lines, named WI-38 (Wistar Institute) and MRC-5 (Medical Research Council). The vaccine contains residual components of their DNA and protein. The cell lines were derived from the lung tissue of an aborted female at 3 months gestation and an aborted male at 14 weeks gestation. The cells of these fetuses were then developed in a lab culture to produce several vaccines."
So friggin what Einstein???:confused: :frown: :confused: :frown: :confused: :rolleyes: :frown: :confused: :rolleyes:

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 08:19 PM

If you were a Christian mother it would make a huge difference.
Then "pro life" Texas Gov. Bush made this vaccine mandatory to all school children in Texas in 1997, during his governorship. The profit MERCK received as a result of this mandate was rumored to be around $200 per child. Their profits will soar into the billions.
Now we learn that booster shots will be required forever if you get this vaccine early in life, because the vaccine wears off and you become susceptible again. On the other hand, those who get chickenpox naturally as a child, are immune for life.
The kids in Texas don't have a chance.
Unless the parents know ahead of time, and demand their right to religious exemption.

Dr. Eagle

12-17-2003, 08:27 PM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:mad: :mad: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Miss BK

12-17-2003, 08:47 PM

Ignore it or learn from it. I really don't care.
But 20 years from now a large section of vaccinated adult Americans are going to suddenly going to come down with chickenpox and not know what the hell happened. As an adult, the rate of deadly complications from chickenpox goes up by 50%. But for children getting the natural virus, it is almost always benign.
So go ahead and let your kids get the vaccine -- it's your choice.
Trust your health to your politicians. It's not about money. They are driven ONLY by the pure goodness in their hearts. :rolleyes:

MagicMtnDan

12-17-2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
Ignore it or learn from it. I really don't care.
But 20 years from now a large section of vaccinated adult Americans are going to suddenly going to come down with chickenpox and not know what the hell happened. As an adult, the rate of deadly complications from chickenpox goes up by 50%. But for children getting the natural virus, it is almost always benign.
So go ahead and let your kids get the vaccine -- it's your choice.
Trust your health to your politicians. It's not about money. They are driven ONLY by the pure goodness in their hearts. :rolleyes:
You know, it's not so much what you say (some of it sounds like it might be worth listening to) - it's more how you say it and your constant anti-Bush yammering that makes me want to throw up all over you.

Dr. Eagle

12-17-2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by MagicMtnDan
You know, it's not so much what you say (some of it sounds like it might be worth listening to) - it's more how you say it and your constant anti-Bush yammering that makes me want to throw up all over you.
Thank you I was starting to feel a little too alone...
and yes it is yammering....:mad: good choice of words...:rolleyes:

gnarley

12-17-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
What friggin ever..don't go away mad, just go away......
Oh my god, I just got back from a real estate final at school & read this.
LMAO hehehehehehehe HAHAHAHAHAHA, to f'n funny I needed a good laugh!
Thanks Dr. Eagle

gnarley

12-17-2003, 11:10 PM

You know Miss Bk I don't like Bush but I can't hardly read your posts either. You make me feel like I am listening to some screeming Liberal who won't shut up until they are gaged or sprayed in the face with pepper spray.
PLEASE

Kilrtoy

12-17-2003, 11:34 PM

OH SHIT THE SKY IS FALLING
Oh wait we are talking about chicken pox,
Oh yeah the SKY IS FALLING
REMEMBER THAT CARTOON MBK
And what facts are these based on
Jim Jones,
Halle bop Cult
OSMA BIN LADEN
or better yet
HUSSEN the pussy of IRAQ:confused: :rolleyes:

Miss BK

12-18-2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Kilrtoy
And what facts are these based on
Quite a number, including the Polycarp Research Institute
But I am sorry for the ranting.
Yes, messing with my kids does piss me off and I can go overboard. I apologize to you all.
If you read the thread about lil rverrat, you saw that I watched my brother and sister die of CF when I was a kid, so I've been a protective mom ever since. I don't want to lose ANY of my children.
My best friend was a pediatrician, who alerted me to the problems with this vaccine and I went to work. That's when I discovered this vaccine could actually put my kids at a higher risk of death when they became middle aged adults. THAT PISSED ME OFF.
But the last straw for me was the Patriot Act which includes laws to limit vaccine lawsuits to $250k, even "in the case of fraud and criminal neglect".
The following website may go over some heads, but if you really want to learn more about the future dangers to those who get this vaccine and why those were serious enough to spur Bush into enacting vaccine maker protections, then click this site;
A Medical Critique of the Varicella Vaccine
By Chris Kahlenborn, MD
From the Polycarp Research Institute
http://www.cogforlife.org/chickenpox.htm
From the FDA website: "chickenpox is mild and not generally life threatening"
So my question is WHY is this vaccine mandatory?

MagicMtnDan

12-18-2003, 06:10 AM

Like I said, you make some interesting points on a serious subject. But you've hijacked this thread completely.
Why don't you start your own thread about the vaccine. I'll bet it'll be back on page three in about 20 minutes (it gets busy around here) but at least you can have center stage on your own thread. :D
Originally posted by Miss BK
Quite a number, including the Polycarp Research Institute
But I am sorry for the ranting.
Yes, messing with my kids does piss me off and I can go overboard. I apologize to you all.
If you read the thread about lil rverrat, you saw that I watched my brother and sister die of CF when I was a kid, so I've been a protective mom ever since. I don't want to lose ANY of my children.
My best friend was a pediatrician, who alerted me to the problems with this vaccine and I went to work. That's when I discovered this vaccine could actually put my kids at a higher risk of death when they became middle aged adults. THAT PISSED ME OFF.
But the last straw for me was the Patriot Act which includes laws to limit vaccine lawsuits to $250k, even "in the case of fraud and criminal neglect".
The following website may go over some heads, but if you really want to learn more about the future dangers to those who get this vaccine and why those were serious enough to spur Bush into enacting vaccine maker protections, then click this site;
A Medical Critique of the Varicella Vaccine
By Chris Kahlenborn, MD
From the Polycarp Research Institute
http://www.cogforlife.org/chickenpox.htm
From the FDA website: "chickenpox is mild and not generally life threatening"
So my question is WHY is this vaccine mandatory?

Miss BK

12-18-2003, 06:14 AM

Like I said, I'm sorry the point was lost in the explanation. And I'm sorry I bored you guys til you were nauseated.:D
The point was to emphasise how these drug companies have hi-jacked our society and our government.
Don't worry. Consider it squashed.

Seadog

12-18-2003, 09:05 AM

This is really moving along. JakeAisA, Socialism is the belief that government is responsible for the care of society. Capitalism is the belief that the free market will solve all ills. The perennial contrast between nurturing and making them fend for theirselves. It is the extremes of each that leads to problems. Socialized medicine is the British and Canadian model.
The difference between reasonable and obscene profit is just like the difference between a credit union and a loan shark. There has to oversight because dishonest people will always take advantage of the less able. Whether through bribery, fine print, fast talking, legal loopholes or just thief, there is always sharks in the financial waters.
Our society is always changing. Identity thief was not a problem in my youth, but now it is a growing business. Not too long ago, there was a big problem with stealing phone services. You don't hear much on that anymore, even tho there is still problems with cloning. Our laws and society has to adapt to the new ways to steal our money and the reality is that most crooks get away with it most of the time.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Miss BK
And there plenty of people who know me and I have owned my own marine business - deep in the heart of Texas, believe it or not. Actually that's where G W rubbed me the wrong way to begin with, back in 1997....
Shortly after stating that he was not going to allow the government to regulate the price of Natural gas, he told all of us oil-rich Texans that he was going into politics, just like his dad. So he sold his oil well and he sold his professional baseball team and launched his bid for Governor.
To win in Texas, all he had to do was promise certain groups of people loads of money and he was a shoo-in. He also promised he'd fight against abortion. By announcing his "Pure Christianity" he securely locked in the Christian vote and that made all the difference.
Sounded good to me too!
Up until I realized we'd all been hood-winked, and within a year my kids were being told they could not attend Texas schools unless they got some bogus new chickenpox shot -- a vaccine made from ABORTIONS!
So here was the man who told the state he was anti-abortion, was helping Merck push bogus vaccines for benign childhood problems.. Varivax, produced by MERCK - developed from aborted baby lung tissue...
it was mandated and I couldnt do a thing about it. If you want to look into this yourself, go to Children of God for Life, www.cogforlife.org .
Then he did the same thing to become President -- hawking to everybody that he was "Pro Life". :rolleyes:
I absolutely hate being lied to.
So you'll fine with everything if Bush outlaws abortion?

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 09:42 AM

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 09:46 AM

Okay guys, I'm sorry for my last two posts. I was catching up on what was said on page 5 before I read page 6. You guys all kissed and made up and I posted before I read that part.
Sorry. Hehehe.

Blown 472

12-18-2003, 09:58 AM

You guys crack me up, every other gubment in the world is corrupt and you seem to think that ours isn't. Do you all have rose colored glasses on??:confused:
And dont start with the patrotic shit, I love this country but it burns my ass when we can take care of our own but we send billions to countries that shit on us, we have to close down schools for lack of money, where does it go??

Freak

12-18-2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Blown 472
You guys crack me up, every other gubment in the world is corrupt and you seem to think that ours isn't. Do you all have rose colored glasses on??:confused:
And dont start with the patrotic shit, I love this country but it burns my ass when we can take care of our own but we send billions to countries that shit on us, we have to close down schools for lack of money, where does it go??
I goes to agencys such as the Army Corps Of Engineers that want to grow their program (agendas) instead of doing what needs to be done. That is a whole other thread
I dont think anyone is arguing on how a businesses and government are supposed to run (by the book) the frustration is with who and how some of them are run. Stockholders that demand ridiculous returns, CEOs that are major holders looking to line their pockets and many other things cause corruption is business and destroy many lives.
I think Seadogs excellent post puts it well. In no way should capitalism be removed, it just needs update. Public outcry is good it causes change.
Some things make me wonder. For example, from a previous post Former CEO of Eli Lilly was chosen by Bush to be head of the US BUDGET AND FINANCE. Why would such a successful businessman want such a job? Obviously he has plenty of money so when you have plenty of money the only other thing left is power. Now you could say to help people but I tend to think (call me a cynic) that it could be for personal gain. I defiantly think businessmen are qualified for the job. Much more than a football mascot. J
I wonder if setting terms on how long public office could be held might be a good. Then they might concentrate on the job instead of keeping the job.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Seadog
This is really moving along. JakeAisA, Socialism is the belief that government is responsible for the care of society. Capitalism is the belief that the free market will solve all ills. The perennial contrast between nurturing and making them fend for theirselves. It is the extremes of each that leads to problems. Socialized medicine is the British and Canadian model.
The difference between reasonable and obscene profit is just like the difference between a credit union and a loan shark. There has to oversight because dishonest people will always take advantage of the less able. Whether through bribery, fine print, fast talking, legal loopholes or just thief, there is always sharks in the financial waters.
Our society is always changing. Identity thief was not a problem in my youth, but now it is a growing business. Not too long ago, there was a big problem with stealing phone services. You don't hear much on that anymore, even tho there is still problems with cloning. Our laws and society has to adapt to the new ways to steal our money and the reality is that most crooks get away with it most of the time.
Seadog,
This country is a capitalist nation. No balance between slavery and freedom is allowed in our Constitution. It is in our laws, but not in our Constititution. I could get into a long drawn out discussion about what Socialism, but lets talk about what IS possible under the US Constitition.
The Declaration of Independence talks about absolute rights and property, with life being the most valuable of all properties. All rights, in our Constitution, are reserved for the people only. Rights only exist for people. All functions allowed government are referred to as Powers, not rights, because only people have rights, rights are individual. The protection of these individual rights, as stated plainly by the founders and as setup by the Constitution itself, is for a government to be formed for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights with police, military and a judiciary. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are the primary purposes of governments existence. That means that the people have absolute freedom to act and live as they please, for their own purpose, without fear of coearcion by the government, other citizens or other nations. You have the right to pursue happiness, but youre not guaranteed happiness in America. You have a right to all your property so long as it is not at the expense of someone elses property. You have absolute freedom and individual rights, so long as theyre not at the expense of somebody elses rights or property. Its that simple. The Constituion listed exactly what the government shall look like and exact powers are given to it by the People. And the tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That means that if the Power isnt given to the government in the Constitution, then the government cant do it. If you dont like it, go to your state government.
Our Constitution sets up a CAPITALIST nationunlimited freedom so long as you dont infringe on anyone elses right to their freedom and property. Thats it! Youre not entitles to anything but what is yours and the protection of government from criminals, foreign enemies and the government itself. You are not entitled to happiness or anything other then opportunity and protection (the pursuit of happiness).
Now, Socialism is not the belief that government is responsible for the care of society as you say. Socialism is the government ownership of production. And Fascism is the private ownership of production, but regulated by government. The differences between the Socialism and Fascism are minimal, but nonetheless, neither are allowed under our Constitution.
So, whether you like it or not, America is CAPITALISTor at least our Constitution calls for us to be.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One side note about your comments on balance: Socialism and Fascism require the usurping of the Peoples rights by governmenttyranny. Balance between tyranny and freedom do not result in freedom. Freedom, as a concept, is an all or nothing idea. You cannot be half free. You are either free or youre under restraint. Half tyranny is not half free. Freedom is absolute. Socialism and Fascism are evil concepts. No good can come from a country practicing half evil.

Freak

12-18-2003, 10:53 AM

Good points jake.

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-18-2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Seadog,
This country is a capitalist nation. No balance between slavery and freedom is allowed in our Constitution. It is in our laws, but not in our Constititution. I could get into a long drawn out discussion about what Socialism, but lets talk about what IS possible under the US Constitition.
The Declaration of Independence talks about absolute rights and property, with life being the most valuable of all properties. All rights, in our Constitution, are reserved for the people only. Rights only exist for people. All functions allowed government are referred to as Powers, not rights, because only people have rights, rights are individual. The protection of these individual rights, as stated plainly by the founders and as setup by the Constitution itself, is for a government to be formed for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights with police, military and a judiciary. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are the primary purposes of governments existence. That means that the people have absolute freedom to act and live as they please, for their own purpose, without fear of coearcion by the government, other citizens or other nations. You have the right to pursue happiness, but youre not guaranteed happiness in America. You have a right to all your property so long as it is not at the expense of someone elses property. You have absolute freedom and individual rights, so long as theyre not at the expense of somebody elses rights or property. Its that simple. The Constituion listed exactly what the government shall look like and exact powers are given to it by the People. And the tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That means that if the Power isnt given to the government in the Constitution, then the government cant do it. If you dont like it, go to your state government.
Our Constitution sets up a CAPITALIST nation
Our constitution set's up a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. (article 4, section 4) capitalism is an economic term not a political term.
note: 'democracy' does not appear in the constitution or the declaration of independence. check it out!!
Originally posted by JakeAisA
Now, Socialism is not the belief that government is responsible for the care of society as you say. Socialism is the government ownership of production. And Fascism is the private ownership of production, but regulated by government. The differences between the Socialism and Fascism are minimal, but nonetheless, neither are allowed under our Constitution.
So, whether you like it or not, America is CAPITALISTor at least our Constitution calls for us to be.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One side note about your comments on balance: Socialism and Fascism require the usurping of the Peoples rights by governmenttyranny. Balance between tyranny and freedom do not result in freedom. Freedom, as a concept, is an all or nothing idea. You cannot be half free. You are either free or youre under restraint. Half tyranny is not half free. Freedom is absolute. Socialism and Fascism are evil concepts. No good can come from a country practicing half evil.
capitalism refers to an economy not a government.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 12:30 PM

Omega: WRONG!
Capitalism is the only Economic system that is also a Political system. Capitalism is a Politico-Economic system becuase Capitalism requires the protection of individual rights by a government. Capitalism requires rights to be protected-freedom. All other economic systems disregard rights to some degree--that makes thier economic system independent of thier political system. Capitalism isn't capitalism without individual property rights protected and defended to the fullest--that makes the economics of Capitalism 100% dependent on the proper political system, a Republic, as you correctly state.
We are a Republic; we're not a democracy. In a Democracy, the will of the majority is what matters. We are exactly opposite of a Democracy becuase our rights are not subject to a vote--they're in stone. Democracy is evil, Communism is based on the majority's whims, not what is right. Communism subjugates the rights of the individual to the "good of the whole". In a pure Democracy, the individual has no rights. Capitalism as a political/economic system is exactly opposite of Democracy.
Basically, when the government leaves it's people alone to pursue thier own goals and happiness and only exists as a force to protect freedom, you find the people creating markets to trade with eachother through mutual agreement alone and for mutual benefit. Free Markets are the result of a proper Republic functioning only as the protector of individual rights and property. The Republic doesn't create anything but stability. That's where the economics come in. The economic effect is a product of Capitalism's political cause (causality--the Law of Cause and Effect).
The only thing democratic about America is our elections becuase there's no other way to elect our government--but it ends there--at least it should end there according to the Constittution.

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET

12-18-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Omega: WRONG!
Capitalism is the only Economic system that is also a Political system. Capitalism is a Politico-Economic system becuase Capitalism requires the protection of individual rights by a government. Capitalism requires rights to be protected-freedom. All other economic systems disregard rights to some degree--that makes thier economic system independent of thier political system. Capitalism isn't capitalism without individual property rights protected and defended to the fullest--that makes the economics of Capitalism 100% dependent on the proper political system, a Republic, as you correctly state.
We are a Republic; we're not a democracy. In a Democracy, the will of the majority is what matters. We are exactly opposite of a Democracy becuase our rights are not subject to a vote--they're in stone. Democracy is evil, Communism is based on the majority's whims, not what is right. Communism subjugates the rights of the individual to the "good of the whole". In a pure Democracy, the individual has no rights. Capitalism as a political/economic system is exactly opposite of Democracy.
Basically, when the government leaves it's people alone to pursue thier own goals and happiness and only exists as a force to protect freedom, you find the people creating markets to trade with eachother through mutual agreement alone and for mutual benefit. Free Markets are the result of a proper Republic functioning only as the protector of individual rights and property. The Republic doesn't create anything but stability. That's where the economics come in. The economic effect is a product of Capitalism's political cause (causality--the Law of Cause and Effect).
The only thing democratic about America is our elections becuase there's no other way to elect our government--but it ends there--at least it should end there according to the Constittution.
I still think it wrong to refer to our govt as CAPITALISTIC. nothing about capitalism protects freedom of the people ect. I think we should be referring to the govt as a REPUBLIC that supports a capitalistic economy but that's just me and my preference. Either way I think we are on the same page.....
Omega

Miss BK

12-18-2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Basically, when the government leaves it's people alone to pursue thier own goals and happiness and only exists as a force to protect freedom, you find the people creating markets to trade with eac hother through mutual agreement alone and for mutual benefit.
And therein lies what is wrong with America today. Our government is NOT leaving it's people alone, at least not equally. Certain business groups are given unfair extraordinary benefits directly from the government, other groups are left holding the bag. This completely upsets the balance for a workable capitalist society.
The fact that governments can be bought off breeds only more corruption. Only the LARGE corporations suceed, while small start-up "mom and pop" shops are closing down in droves.
Here's some "for instances":
1. Tax breaks to mega manufacturers that relocate to other countries
2. Tax breaks to corporations who's headquarters are offshore
3. Limits protecting only certain industries from civil suits even for "fraudulent or criminal acts".
4. Non-bid government contracts to certain major corporations with direct ties to the Presidency.
5. Top cabinet posts being headed by benefactors of certain major corporations, and enacting bills that benefit the same.
And then there's the other freedoms we are losing that are even more serious, like a government forcing families to undergo medical procedures without any evidence they are necessary other than economic reasons. This economic factor (ie: Major corporations losing millions in missed work pay for parents who have to stay home when their children have chickenpox) is a MAJOR force in the drive for universal immunization in the United States.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 12:59 PM

Yes, I think we are on the same page. But ask yourself why you're afraid to say the word "Capitalism". America cannot be defended if we're afraid to call it what it is. Why would you defend something if you admit guilt by not calling it what it is? This is why Republicans are so bad. They're 100 times better then liberals, but they're afraid to openly defend capitalism and Republicanism. They accept the enemies premise that free markets and individual rights are evil. Republicans refer to Capitalism as a "necessary evil". There's no such thing as a necessary evil. Calling it such just arms your opposition. If you beleive in something and beleive it's right, then why not scream it from the rooftops, why not defend it to the death. That's America's fault--We're afraid to scream to the rest of the world what we are and that we're proud of it. Idendification is the first step in clarity and a proper defense of our way of life first requires clarity of what we are.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
And therein lies what is wrong with America today. Our government is NOT leaving it's people alone, at least not equally. Certain business groups are given unfair extraordinary benefits directly from the government, other groups are left holding the bag. This completely upsets the balance for a workable capitalist society.
The fact that governments can be bought off breeds only more corruption. Only the LARGE corporations suceed, while small start-up "mom and pop" shops are closing down in droves.
Here's some "for instances":
1. Tax breaks to mega manufacturers that relocate to other countries
2. Tax breaks to corporations who's headquarters are offshore
3. Limits protecting only certain industries from civil suits even for "fraudulent or criminal acts".
4. Non-bid government contracts to certain major corporations with direct ties to the Presidency.
5. Top cabinet posts being headed by benefactors of certain major corporations, and enacting bills that benefit the same.
And then there's the other freedoms we are losing that are even more serious, like a government forcing families to undergo medical procedures without any evidence they are necessary other than economic reasons. This economic factor (ie: Major corporations losing millions in missed work pay for parents who have to stay home when their children have chickenpox) is a MAJOR force in the drive for universal immunization in the United States.
Miss BK,
Your original statement about government's involvment is correct but your examples are false. The Constitution doesn't give the government the power to meddle in commerce. The "Interstate Commerce" cause that the Supreme Court used to open the flood gates on Government intrusion into the economy was UnConstitutional. The government shouldn't be in the markets at all. They are meant to be powerless where commerce is concerned. The framers wrote in great detail what powers the Constitution gave the government, but they only wrote one single sentance that gave the government the power to create all these departments that regulate commerce? Why only one single sentance? The "Interstate Conmmerce" clause that the Federal Government uses to justify the FDA, SEC, SCC, HUD, Dept of Agriculture, Dept. of Labor, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Interior, Dept of Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Transportation, Heath and Human Services, etc., etc. All of these departments were created from one line in the Constitutution that was mis-intrepreted. The proof that it was misintrepreted is the fact that none of these powers were expressly conveyed in the Constitution; rather, our government bent the "Interstate Commerce" clause. There should be no power to meddle in commerce accept to protect rights of those bereived. The commerce clause gave power for the government to settle disputes among states over interstate commerce, to levy tarriffs and to ensure fair interstate trade--not to regulate the economy like it does now. There should be no favoritism towards or against companies, industries or consumers because the government shouldn't be involved at all--they're not given the power to be.

Blown 472

12-18-2003, 01:44 PM

Is it hard to drive with blinders on?

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 01:54 PM

You tell me.

Blown 472

12-18-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by JakeAisA
You tell me.
I am not the one living in the pie in the sky world, I see politicians for what they are. And can see the the good ol boy club is in full swing.

Miss BK

12-18-2003, 02:00 PM

I never mentioned Constitution. What I said was that our government was using corrupt practices to give unfair advantages to ONLY certain capitalists.
A number of these unfair "meddlements" were committed when they drew up the PATRIOT ACT.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Blown 472
I am not the one living in the pie in the sky world, I see politicians for what they are. And can see the the good ol boy club is in full swing.
To a certain extent you're right. I'm trying to say that they never should have been able to have the power. If the government abided by the Constitution, the good ole boy network would exist only in the private sector and then the private sector would have killed it.

JakeAisA

12-18-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Miss BK
I never mentioned Constitution. What I said was that our government was using corrupt practices to give unfair advantages to ONLY certain capitalists.
A number of these unfair "meddlements" were committed when they drew up the PATRIOT ACT.
Do you know why the Patriot Act has limitations on limits on lawsuit awards for immunizations? Because the government may have to immunize all of us in the event of a small pox attack, or worse. And those immunizations result in some deaths themselves, less then 1%. Do you expect the government to pay out a billion dollars to every person who unfortunately died of an immunization becuase they tried to save 250 million? That's not an infringement on your freedom. Those unfortunate few who die of the vaccine will be victims of terrorism, not victims of the the government who tried to save over 99% of the population that was under attack.