(Oh yeah, medicalnewstoday, a left wing blog site I bet).
Quote:
Why did Chiron Flu Crisis Affect USA more than England? 17 Oct 2004
Why did the British never allow themselves to become dependent on just two flu major flu vaccine suppliers like the Americans did? According to health experts, they did this in case the current Chiron flu vaccine crisis happened - to make sure the nation's people were not left in a vulnerable position.
Last August UK officials, with the same information the US officials had, decided something had to be done in case the Chiron supplies, 14% of UK supplies, went belly up. The US officials decided to believe Chiron and gamble 48% of their supplies on an assurance that everything would turn out fine despite some worrying set backs.
When October 5th arrived, the British authorities pulled the plug on the Chiron, Liverpool, supplies. US authorities were caught out - nothing had been done in advance, the country had allowed itself to get into this situation.
Even without this crisis, the UK authorities have always had a situation where they can fall back on six or seven suppliers that have been pre-approved by UK authorities. The US, on the other hand, only has two - one of which has let them down. Had the US had more pre-approved suppliers, had the US started to do something about this problem last August when alarm bells were ringing, had the US…….? This is what many Americans are now starting to ask.
It was Hillary Roddam that wrote the legislation that called for price fixing of vaccinations. They fixed the prices so low that American vaccine manufacturers were outsourced. They couldn't break even.
Again WTF does this have to do with Bush?
Militant Bluefish Jihadist
"Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people," "It's just very, very sad" - Donald Trump 2011
"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it." - JAMES M. INHOFE
"Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded." - WILLIAM GRAY
"The gods do not deduct from man's allotted span those hours spent in fishing" - Babylonian proverb
Bush appointed political yo-yo's to run the fda, and has them running off protecting the world by ensuring industries such as drug companies and hog farmers aren''t over-regulated.
Read the article. The FDA intentionally didn't find another source of the vaccine. They didn't even request aventis to produce extra.
That is FDA policy, and FDA policy is bush's responsibility.
#397935 - 10/17/0402:33 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by jon h.:
They fixed the prices so low that American vaccine manufacturers were outsourced. They couldn't break even.
You mean, they fixed prices so low that American vaccine manufacturers couldn't break even, and still pay their CEO's, top executives, and Wall St. investors the fat, excessive, exorbitant checks that their greedy little pockets demanded!
But, like the airlines, they have no problem asking middle class working Americans for concessions and give backs.
Why is it that profit always starts at the top, but sacrifice and belt tightening always starts at the bottom?
#397936 - 10/17/0402:56 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Uconn: Kevin B you are wrong about the Michael Moore quote un-quote documantary. That was suppose to be factually...
"Faranheit 9/11" was touted as political satire and entertaining, comic, commentary, not hard, cold, journalistic fact. Just read the box!
I recently got a pamphlet in the mail from my sister-in-law, a Catholic school teacher and a single issue, anti-abortion rights voter, blinded like so many of you by well intentioned patriotism and religious fervor, which attempts to attack Moore's film. It is published by an organization called Grassfire.org, apparently the right wing counterpart to Moveon.org.
Among some of their astoundingly brilliant arguments against Moore's assertions:
Moore is lying because he referred to Fla. Secy. of State Katherine Harris as "...the vote countin' woman..." They point out the fact that Harris never actually counted one single vote! Even though as Secy. of State she is responsible to oversee the election process in total and for the certification of the final tally. OH! I GET IT!! GEE, They're right! :rolleyes:
Next, they claim Moore is lying because he refers to her as the ..."chairman of (Bush's) campaign..." They point out that Harris was NOT the chairman, "she was the Bush Campaign CO-CHAIR for Florida." Well, that certainly makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it! :p
If anyone wants to take a really startling look at the 2000 election, get a copy of "Unprecedented" a DVD about the unethical, if not outright criminal, practices undertaken by Jeb, Kate, and the Florida Republicans before, during, and after, the so-called 2000 election. I have a copy if anyone wants to see it.
Another gem in this pamphlet is where they dispute Moore's assertion that there was only one member of Congress who had a child serving in Iraq. The pamphlet points out that there are in fact SEVEN such members of Congress! Well, again, that certainly proves that Moore's arguments, (admittedly biased, never touted as "fair and balanced" like those at Fakes News) don't hold any water. Seven, out of 535! Well, excuse me all to hell if I'm not impressed!
I could continue to poke huge holes in this lame attempt at damage control, but I wouldn't want to be too long winded.
(Besides, we all know that us liberals have no command of facts, so well illustrated by this piece of garbage of a pamphlet! Excuse me, I gotta take a dump; I think I'll use this pamphlet as toilet paper!)
#397937 - 10/17/0403:09 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Uconn: One thing I can say about the republican party is they support their man even if they don't agree with him or her.
That's because Democrats and liberals are intellectually honest enough and astute enough to vote their conscience and are not blinded by misplaced party loyalty, or misplaced "patriotism", or misplaced religious convictions.
Gee, that's really brilliant isn't it? Vote for someone you disagree with, who you know in your heart is WRONG, about foreign policy, Iraq, the economy, health care, homosexuality, abortion rights, tax reform, social security, just because he happens to be a member of the same party as you!
No wonder we're in the boat we're in!! People are voting for someone they disagree with just because he is the man their party has selected!! I got an idea, how about we vote for the person who will do the best JOB! And not worry about which party he represents!?!
#397938 - 10/17/0403:18 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Without a Doubt By RON SUSKIND
Published: October 17, 2004
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do. ''
Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''
#397939 - 10/17/0403:20 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Uconn: So becaus eone writer says we lost the war in Iraq am I suppose to fall down and say "I need to vote for John Kerry now". What a bunch of **** in plain english. It is a OP ed piece nothing more.
NO ONE has said we LOST anything! At least not that I have seen.
On the other hand, Bush landed on a carrier duded up like Tom Cruise, and declared that the war was over and WE WON!!
Is that true? Does anyone believe this war is OVER, or that we have WON? A little premature to declare VICTORY, don't ya think? It's a good thing we won, because we have suffered more casualties since he declared the war was over, than we did while we "won"! I'd hate to think what a LOSS would look like!! And I'm not suggesting we are losing, just that it's not going very well, and we are becoming bogged down in something that may not be "winnable" by any reasonable, objective definition of "victory".
Many of us are saying that we went into Iraq prematurely, and that Bush and Co. lied to get you all to support him in doing so. And that he did so intentionally; and to further his own political agenda and the financial interests of his constituents, contributors, and supporters, so that you, and they, would continue to support him; so he would be reelected, so he could continue to do what he has done for the last four years, which is to manipulate our government so as to benefit those constituents, instead of doing what is in our collective best interests.
#397940 - 10/17/0403:31 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Fievel,
I salute you for your ability to be intellectually honest enough to see the reality of the situation and recognize the slippery slope and double edged sword that the Patriot Act is. Unlike some of your less learned colleagues, who cannot seem to comprehend the negative implications and risks which accompany that legislation. Their short sightedness is very disturbing to me.
Even though as Secy. of State she is responsible to oversee the election process in total and for the certification of the final tally. OH! I GET IT!! GEE, They're right! :rolleyes: 
Previous Topic
Index