#398122 - 10/20/0407:12 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Kevin B,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I should know better than to lower myself, and in principal I know you are absolutely right.
However, in my defense, I will admit that it is easier said than done when I find myself constantly under fire and being attacked personally for voicing my opinions, which are admittedly very strong. I can take someone attacking my views, countering them with opposing views, facts, or logic. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or to change anyone's mind.
But when I am constantly called a traitor, a communist, an idiot, belittled, disrespected, insulted, told I am "angry" because I have not achieved enough in my life (the f***ing NERVE some people have is AMAZING!), that my comments are "assinine", that I should get a new job, that I am just jealous, that I am not in the real world because I work for the state and that my benies and pension are somehow a "handout" or a "gift", etc. etc. ad nauseum, ad infinitum...
I think any reasonable person would eventually get fed up and strike back. I can only be expected to take so much.
After all, I'm only sub-human! :p
But I promise to try to do better, and will steel myself against their slings and arrows.
#398123 - 10/20/0407:29 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
John from Madison CT
OffshoreFishingGear.com
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 15920
Loc: Old Saybrook (formerly Madison...
Anyone hear Kerry blaming Bush for the Flu Vacine shortage!?!?! Amazing and shameless.
Few know that it is actually the Clinton's who forced US manufacturers out of this business with threats of price control. The only ones left were import options.
Kerry is getting desperate. He just loves to scare the elderly. According to him Bush is trying to not only take away their SSecurity (despite the fact that the Democrats supported Taxing benefits), he know is trying to Kill the old folks by holding back Vaccines.
Are Dick and Bush better for using their scare tactics on the ENTIRE POPULATION concerning terrorism? They've basically said that if you vote for Kerry, then there will be a terrorist attack in our country. Now that's a scare tactic if I've ever heard one. What I can't believe is that people are actually buying it. Dick and Bush can kiss my big ol' white ass.
"I'm the master of low expectations." - George W. Bush
(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.
#398126 - 10/20/0407:46 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by jon h.: WTF does that have to do with Bush?
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.
#398127 - 10/20/0407:47 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by gerg: 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.
#398128 - 10/20/0407:47 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by nu2salt:
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?
#398129 - 10/20/0407:49 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Jon S.
Member
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 1854
Loc: Clinton
JFM, I have followed this thread for all 50 pages now and I respect most of what you post on the topics. I am not doubting that the Clintons were not involved with the vaccine mess somehow. But you offered no proof whatsoever to back up that claim. You always say those from the left just make claims without evidence. Where is yours in this claim?
#398130 - 10/20/0408:06 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Jon S, There you are!
I meant to reply to you about your advice about the S&P, 10%, 39 years.
While that may be absolutely true, I don't doubt it, I have some questions and concerns.
(No, finance and investment is not my strong suit, probably because for most of my adult life I was too busy worrying about paying rent and putting food on the table, you know, the "Hierarchy of Needs"? But anyway...)
First, is that 10% over 39 years, or 10% per year for 39 years?
Second, is that adjusted for inflation, in real dollars? If not, couldn't that end up as a net loss?
Third, I ain't got 39 years! I'm 43, in 39 years I'll be 82 if I live that long. How does that impact me, assuming I want to retire in 22 years, when I am 65?
(Yeah, yeah, I know I should have started saving and investing when I was 20, blah, blah, blah, like I said, Hierarchy of Needs, something I don't expect alot of people on this board to understand. We don't all start out equal, and we don't all have the same choices and opportunities, contrary to what the white right wing would have everyone believe.)
Fourth, when it comes to investing, (or gambling) isn't it true that:
It's not wether you're up or down, it's WHAT TIME DO YOU HAVE TO CASH OUT AND GO HOME! (?)
I'm not being sarcastic (completely) there is alot about this I don't know, and was hoping you might be able to help educate me a little, about rates of return, inflation, impact of time, seriously.
Previous Topic
Index