Bashing republican\democrats thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Mar 24, 2003.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    No. I don't think any of the allegences were, at the time, mistakes. You just do the best you can to handle each problem as it comes. If we hadn't allied with the Soviets against the Nazis, we might have lost WW2. If we hadn't done all we could to maintain stability in the free world to present a united front against the Soviets, perhaps the cold war might not have ended as it did. It's good to plan ahead, but if you concentrate too much on the road ahead, you may end up tripping on the bump right in front of you. I'm reminded of a little league playoff game in which my son's team was the underdog. I overheard the opposing coach bragging about how he was saving his good pitcher for the next game where he would face a better team. "That's strategy" he said. Well, he never made it to that next game. My son's team came out on top. Should the US have stayed away from unsavory characters and dictators in its fight with the Soviets to avoid problems with Moslem extremists once the Soviet Empire was destroyed? No way. The Soviet Empire was a real and immediate threat that had to be delt with. Otherwise, we might not have made it to the next game. In the real world there are always down sides. Celebrex is good for your arthritis, but bad for your heart. Airbags are good for adult males, but knock the heads off of children. Lipitor is good for your cholesterol, but bad for your liver. Moslem extreemists make good allies against godless commies, but tend to turn on you once the battle is won. That's life.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    To borrow one from you, Madanthonywayne:

    It's always an interesting experience to attempt to respond to your posts, largely because I question the relevance.

    For instance:

    Now, aside from the question of how Germany would hold Europe, or better yet how they would have succeeded in prosecuting a war against the United States (after all, they declared war against us), there is still the question of relevance. More specifically, we might look at a line of historical continuity:

    Mistake 1: U.S. invades Russia, 1918-1920, initiating its opposition to the Communist Revolution

    Mistake 2: In interest of Cold War against Soviet Union, U.S. topples democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran and supports the Shah, 1953-1979.

    Mistake 3: In interest of counteracting Iranian Revolution, U.S. begins normalization of relations with Iraq, supplying weapons to known human rights abuser and accused terrorist sponsor, 1982-1990.

    Mistake 4: Having dispensed with our need for Saddam Hussein, United States begins long campaign against Iraq, leading to 2003 invasion, 1991-present.​

    We raised the Cold War (#1), opposed democracy (#2), supported a madman (#3), and invaded a sovereign nation on false pretense (#4). The best line of historical continuity strongly suggests, if we take your assertion, that we propped up dictators in order to cover for prior mistakes.

    Funny you should mention prescription drugs. I think when a whole class of painkillers is pulled for threatening the lives of its users, we might consider whether or not commercial demands compelled the manufacturers to rush just a little.

    And that's the politically-correct version. They knew. And they still went ahead.

    Interesting comparison.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    First of all, the whole class of painkillers was not pulled. Two drugs in the same class (Celebrex and Bextra) are still available, although sales have fallen since the scare. Certain side effects can not be known until a drug has been used by millions of people. Even when you know a drug has certain side effects, you still may need the drug. It's a matter of risk/benefit ratio. Liberals never seem to understand this sort of thing, and demand zero risk (i.e. the precautionary principle). Of course this is impossible, a desire for zero risk simply results in inaction, which carries its own risks.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Insert Title Here)

    You are correct. Turns out it was the ad campaigns for those two, not the drugs themselves, that were pulled.

    (1) Ostrow, Nicole. "Merck Says Vioxx Risks May Apply to Whole Drug Class". February 16, 2005. See
    (2) Staff Report. "Pfizer To Pull Celebrex Campaign". December 20, 2005. See
    (3) Otto, M. Alexander. "FDA will create drug board". February 16, 2005. See
    (4) CBS 5. "New Cover-Up Charges Aimed at FDA". February 16, 2005. See
    (5) Rubin, Rita. "Celebrex's safety data was inadequate, panel says". February 16, 2005. See

    We'll see what comes on Friday. There do appear to have been problems, however, with the green-lighting of this entire class of drugs.

    I don't think it changes my point any.

    In another discussion I made mention of conservative superficiality. This is another example you've given.

    There is a difference between zero-risk and risks misrepresented. Liberals don't like misrepresentation of risk. This, of course, as compared to weighing proper representation of risk versus the question of whether it's good for business in the short-term.

    There is a difference between taking a risk you know about because you have to and taking an unknown risk for someone else's profit. That's not too tough to understand, is it?

    Is the best we have the best that we can do? Obviously not. The best we can do is bad for the short-term outlook. It's a risk many are unwilling to take.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2005
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Just thought I'd quote that one. Anyway, no one is in favor of misrepresenting risks for someone else's profit. The left sees conspiracy under every table. If there was some conspiracy, the trial lawyers will pursue them like ravenous wolves.

  9. Brutus1964 We are not alone! Registered Senior Member

    Tiassa and madanthonywayne

    It takes at least 10 years and exhaustive research before drugs are allowed on the open market. After all of this the drugs will come out and become a great benefit to millions. Then comes "the study"; the lone study that makes a correlation between the drug and some kind of malady. The media immediately takes this lone study as gospel and wildly publicizes it. People who had once benefited from the drug now think that all of their health problems are because of this drug. People start coming out of the woodwork with sanctimonious faces telling everyone their sob stories about how they have been victimized. Then the lawyers get involved. They sue the stuffing out of the drug companies and ignorant but well meaning juries go along with it. Years later a new study comes out and disproves the first study but the damage is done. The list is long with products such as breast implants, Fen Phen, and others. We wonder why drugs are so expensive in the United States. It is a wonder that any drug company can ever stay in business. If things don't change there may very well not be any in the future. Yes we must be very vigilant in not allowing bad drugs on the market but it seems that junk science and mass hysteria are the rule of the day, and keeping so many promising drugs from ever coming to the market.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2005
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Brutus: Couldn't agree more.
  11. redsoulja Registered Member

    interesting comment on the drug industry Brutus, read the latest issue of AdBuster, they have a very good article about Buying Science and the Drug industry.

  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    I, too, find your sob story on behalf of pharmaceutical companies rather interesting. Unfortunately, I can't find the studies you refer to on breast implants, fen-phen, and others. It would help people understand the issues you are describing if you would post links or other references.

    I did go out and look around. I found this extract, reprinted (by a lawyer) from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America:

    So there's that. Besides, I always thought the big issue with breast implants was willful suppression of vital information. That seems to be what the lawyers are focused on.


    Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "The Other Side of the Story: The Truth Behind Breast Implants". See
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Drugs are expensive because drug companies can hire lobbyists to make sure they can stay that way.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Anyone know a flex-time pharmaceutical rep who travels from office to office pitching the talking points and giving out drug samples to doctors? If you do, look around at what they do, and ask them about the business ten years ago. I have t-shirts I'll never wear and plastic cups galore bearing various drug logos that a rep in my acquaintance had left over when laws came about limiting what the reps could give away.

    The rules cut to essential things that doctors could use: note pads, pens, drug samples, educational (promotional) materials, &c. And I sympathize with the pharmaceutical companies to a point on the count of t-shirts, coffee cups, and other sorts of goodies, I do recall that we had a coffee-table book on Freud's art collection, as well as scale reproductions of various pieces from his collection. Sales awards handed out every year are crystal and glass sculptures--pyramids, discs, blocks--of prestigious marque. One particular company convention my acquaintance attended in order to receive one of these little baubles featured an evening's entertainment with Fleetwood Mac, at the rumored price of $700,000 before adding in actual production costs. Weekend retreats to ski lodges to entertain doctors and promote the products, or resort hotels along the coasts.

    To the other, pharmaceutical companies also use consumer dollars to patch up their growing networks because these reps don't have commercial office space--they work out of their homes. You won't hear me complaining about the elimination of that part of the commute, nor the expense of getting the system to work correctly. Communications and logistics are part of any business, and especially in communications I advocate spending more money.

    There are many places that pharmaceutical companies waste money, and many of those issues pertain to unnecessary exaggerations of expense. Spokespeople: Mike Ditka and Johnny Bench come to mind. Ditka, of course, was more expensive. But then they've got these celebrities giving pep talks at a hefty fee, too. All of this to convince a doctor to prescribe your drug instead of another.

    There are thousands of these reps, too, to the point that some doctors regard them as locusts.

    And this is only the tip of the glass pyramid.

    We must remember that above all else, pharmaceutical companies are businesses, and answer to investors. To leave it at the simplistic, feel-good messages of the growing ad push would be nice, but we can't. Regardless of how any individual researcher or market rep feels about what they do within the structure of a pharmaceutical company, the bottom line is financial, and not human. Otherwise, Bill Clinton wouldn't be needed to negotiate affordable prices for third-world countries.

    Perhaps for the researcher, each day is a chance for human hope. But for the executive, each day is business as usual, profit, loss, and who gets canned for what. The seeming waste of money and time on an increasingly-competitive marketing game is symptomatic of that reality.

    As a human institution, it would be nice if a pharmaceutical company could do things sheerly for the species' quality of life, but as a business, that's exactly how to reduce any contribution it makes to quality of life to nonexistent. As a business, that's exactly how to get mowed down and disappear.
  15. VossistArts 3MTA3 Registered Senior Member

    Yeah youre flogging a dead horse. The only thing you can and ever could say about kerry and people who voted for kerry were that Kerry is not bush and people who voted for kerry didnt vote for bush. It had nothing to do with kerry, it had everything to do with bush and trying to subvert his re-election. It is literally laughable,tho, to try and fault kerry or practically anyone else in national goverment over bush. Jesus. Im so proud that the first president my kids are really aware of is bush.. yeah, lie cheat and kill to make it happen kids, watch the president.
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    the veterans who fought with him tend to support him.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I posted in the wrong topic. I moved it where it was supposed to be. I didn't mean to burden you with the necessity of looking around before panicking. Here, I'll make it easy: You can find the reply in its proper context here.

    You're right. I'm responsible for your inability to look around and figure out what's going on.

Share This Page