Something has me worried

[BenL]

[ QUOTE ]

The major pharmaceutical companies in the US provided almost 90% of the nations flu vaccine at one time. They did this despite a very low profit margin for the product. Basically, they were doing us a favor. In the late 80's a man from North Carolina who had received the vaccine got the flu. The strain he caught was one of the strains in that years vaccine made by a US company. What did he do? He sued and he won. e was awarded almost $5 million! After that case was appealed and lost, most US pharmaceutical companies stopped making the vaccine. The liability out weighed the profit margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few years ago the US enacted laws protecting childrens vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits, but the number of companies making vaccines for children has not increased. So it is doubtful that a fear of lawsuits is the reason for the lack of vaccine manufacturers in the US.

A more likely explaination is that, unlike Canada, the US does not have a coherent policy on immunization, so the manufacturers have no idea if in any given year will they be able to sell enough vaccine to make a profit. The vaccine for flu takes nearly a year to make and has to be thrown out if it isn't used that season. This makes the business of flu vaccines a very risky proposition. In Canada, the government guarantees the manufacturers that they'll purchase a minimum number of doses each year. This makes it easier for the manufacturers to calculate if they'll make a profit.

 

Lawyers and government-managed helath care have not helped this country one bit. People like Edwards are dangerous. He even promised people like Christopher Reaves would walk if Kerry was elected!

Education is good here in Texas. My kids are doing well, and we are personal friends with two teachers.

Bush may not be the sharpest guy around, (although he had better grades than Kerry), but being president is also about having a good team. Bush has done well here.

We can solve this entire issue by raising the voting age back to 21 and by allowing only tax payers to vote - anyone who pays no taxes does not get to vote. Or make it property owners, the effect would be the same. And then move tax day to the day after the election. Things would change real quick.

Ron, can we get a spell checker on this thing?!

 

[Steve Toner]

OK, I was going to stay out of this thread. But Lynn, your flu vaccine story is an urban legend .

 

This subject is like a drug, you fight the addiction, but then you finally can't stop yourself from saying something.

Come to think of it, this is what it must be like for a woman every day of her life.

 

[ChrisL]

I promise that this will be my last rant /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, notwithstanding his success with the Camp David accords, the USA is in big trouble if we start looking to Jimmy Carter for advice on foreign policy. His approach to the cold war? Let's start unilaterally disarming until the Soviets give up! The US military was in a shambles when Carter left office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mark,

Yes agreed. Jimmy Carter was ineffective in many areas, especially in domestic matters. But as you stated, the Camp David accord was having the desired effect, probably the only approach to have had any positive effect in the Middle East in recent history. And this despite the "shambles” in the military. It all points to the fact that the military should play a very small role in the solution. A primarily military solution can only be effective if the enemy can be either (a) exterminated or (b) persuaded. The Iraq invasion has resulted in an increase in terrorist recruitments (hence (a) does not apply) and a greater resolve in the terrorist cause (hence (b) does not apply). In the end, the English were not able to exterminate the IRA, the Israelis were not able to exterminate PLO, the South Africans were not able to exterminate the ANC, the Russians were not able to exterminate the Chechen terrorists etc etc so what example are we using to follow the current course? The IRA, ANC and even the cold war were resolved because both sides saw reason, not because one had gained a military advantage. This is not an ideological argument about pacifism vs force. It’s about a simple scientific exercise in determining which option works best. We need to seriously ask our leaders why they have taken options that make no historical sense, and then force them to look to real world solutions. Good-vs-evil type solutions might gain votes, but they are only effective in an ideal world… and we are far from that.

 

[David Morton]

Reaves left his wheelchair behind. He could possibly be walking again now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Keith]

IRA resolved? There are still many tons of weapons and explosives squirreled away in Ireland. Every now and then, they'll dig 'em up and start over. So it has always been so it always will ever be. Ad infinitum ad nauseum.

 

[Lynn Larsen]

Yeah sure, that's what they'd like you to believe, Steve...
.
.
.
No, just kidding! I looked at the UL report and conceed that I got this and posted it without checking it out. It just sounded so plausible though given Edwards background.

Lynn

 

[Steve Toner]

I suggest you read up on propaganda techniques. This applies to Ron's comment about Hollywood icons as well. Of course, knowing about the the techniques does not make you immune, but it does help you to understand and recgnize when you're being manipulated.

 

[Bill Bayard]

Why not abolish the Electoral College, and allow the majority to decide the outcome of a presidential election, regardless of how many elected representatives come from each state?
How can the United States be called a true democracy, when getting the majority of the popular vote can still lose an election (see 2000)??? I don't know about you, but this has bothered me for 30 years!
This system is out of synch with what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, was meant to be!
EVERY vote should hold a high (equal) value, not just those in states with a large number of electoral votes.
Questionable election "events" and their effects would be reduced to a minimum as well (see Florida, 2000).
God help us if there is another electoral vote circus like the one in 2000! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
The way these two campaigns have been run, makes me wonder what's in store for us this year? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Bill

 

[Mark Worthington]

I agree, Bill. The founding fathers saw fit to set up the electoral college system, but I can't really understand why it would be viewed as preferable to a straight-up popular vote. I predict that this election will be so screwed up that there will be a constitutional amendment on national elections passed in the next four years. I think everyone outside of Florida and Ohio would support it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regardless of what your political affiliation is, I urge all US citizens to vote. Once. In your home precinct. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Ian K]

Pat,

[ QUOTE ]

Bush may not be the sharpest guy around, (although he had better grades than Kerry), but being president is also about having a good team. Bush has done well here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's arguable that he has had a good team. Not with
all of hte finger pointing about bad intel and some really
poor gaffes to the media.

[ QUOTE ]
We can solve this entire issue by raising the voting age back to 21 and by allowing only tax payers to vote - anyone who pays no taxes does not get to vote. Or make it property owners, the effect would be the same. And then move tax day to the day after the election. Things would change real quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really stirs the pot for me.

If you are old enough to get drafted (and yes, a draft is
still possible) or join the military and go off and kill
people (not just enemies, but collateral damage), and are
old enough to held accountable for your actions as an adult
and not a minor, can own land, own a business, and hold a
public office, I feel you should have the right to help
determine who gets to call those shots.

And to restrict voting to property owners is just as bad.
There is a signficant number of people in this country who
cannot afford to own property. Are their rights and opinions
less significant than yours or mine? That kind of thinking
takes us back to when slaves, servants and wives were not
allowed to vote! It takes us back to the Declaration of
Independence when the forefathers of our country disliked
taxation without representation!

I do, however, agree 100% about the spellchecker /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ian

 

[Keith]

I just heard about all the lawyers standing by in Florida waiting to "swing" into action! All this makes our own "democratic" process seem tame by comparison. Oh well, long live the Constitutional Monarchy. Should have paid the tax on the tea.....

 

[Lynn Larsen]

The electoral college thing is actually very simple. When the constitution was written, the vast majority of US citizens were illiterate and woefully uniformed because of the lack of communications infrastructure. The colonies and the districts within the colonies gladly agreed that each area, as equal in terms of population as possible, would elect a man who was literate, educated and knowledgeable and who was known to those voting for him to actually make the choice of who should be president. It is representative democracy in the same vein as when we elect representatives to make laws and levy taxes.

Times have changed since then though and I agree it is probably time to revisit this need for this mechanism for choosing a president. But, it isn't a diabolical scheme to rob anyone of their input to the system (or it wasn't designed to be anyway.) On the other hand, the electors we vote for should not be persuaded by simple minded attack adds that distort the truth. Indeed, the idea was that they would know, first hand, what the qualities of the candidates are and the types of decisions they had a history of making. At its best, it really makes all of the BS we've had to put up with for weeks now quite moot and, in my book, that's ain't all bad.

Lynn

PS Once you've written your piece, select the whole thing, paste it into an email or your word processor and then spell check it. Copy the corrected text and paste it back over the top of your original text.

 

[Bill Bayard]

FYI,

There have been seven cases of "faithless electors" in U.S. history, in which despite the popular vote favoring one candidate, electors have cast their electoral votes for a different candidate. The Electoral College is subject to corruption at many levels. This is only one example of the system's faults. It has many!
Any government that permits such abuse of power, by the inherent design of the system (one elector, one vote of his OWN choice), should think seriously about a hardware upgrade! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif I would like to be absolutely certain that my vote is just that, MY vote!

Bill

 

I got a recorded call this morning that the Democrates are going to bring the draft back if Kerry is elected. Not because he said he would but because he didn't say he wouldn't. All I can say is, arggghhh! I am going to vote for a new team. The Bush team does seem a little nutty and a bit scarry at times. I want to know what the F is going on as a citizen and I haven't felt the Bush team is playing with my Country's best interest at heart.
Let the other team up to bat. They couldn't be any worse.
If they can't do the job we expect kick their butts out too.
We have to have better people than this to represent the U. S. A.
Both canidates leave a bad taste in my mouth. But I still think we have to get out and vote. Vote for a team and not the individual.
I would like a leader who could step up and accept things that go wrong as well as right. Americans want to back their Presidents during war or any crises that endangers our country. But we need to know the truth. Our kids can't die in Iraq for BS. They need to know what they are doing is making things better
A thought.
Steve /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

I would like to see a deadheat,on the basis that two halves would equal a whole. Seriously though I think the lawyers will be the real winners. I still like the old one where this guy asks a lawyer would he answer two questions for $1000. Sure said the lawyer what's the second? Regards

 

[Lynn Larsen]

Bill,

I hear what you are saying and as I was leaving the polls today, I was thinking that its too bad that I can't vote for a Libertarian. I can't because the reality is that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for the democrats in my mind and I can't, in good conscience allow that. I think we, Republicans who wish they could vote Libertarian, ought to register as Libertarian but vote Republican until the Democrats, realizing they are loosing the populus to the right, provide candidates who are centrist enough that we would be willing to chance a democrate winning to actually vote Libertarian.

But with respect to your 'one man/one vote' theories, if you take that view point to the extreme, then we should abolish all legistative branches of government and have every law and bill voted on directly by the people and bag representative democracy completely. I don't think that would work either. I am afraid we have to have some form of heirarchal representation in our government else anarchy would insue. Our system has flaws, as any system concieved, established and administered by human beings will, BUT it is a hell of a lot better than what ever is in second place!

Regards,
Lynn

 

[Keith]

Norman - I think you have something there. In times of "war" Govts historically form coalitions don't they? And, as both candidates often refer to the "war" (against terrorism) doesn't it make sense for them to abandon the political rhetoric, join forces and unite the nation against this threat? Just a thought at the 11th hour....

 

If you don't have a stake in the country, i.e., don't pay taxes, or own property, then in effect you are doing nothing more than voting yourself what you want. Politicans then begin to pander to the masses and offer things to them - free this or that, and people will vote to give themselves these things. But who pays? As de Tocqueville noted many years ago, once the masses realize that they can vote whatever they wish for themselves, this little thing called a representative democracy will cease to exist.

Good idea on pasting to check spelling, but that takes time and I'm willing to pay for poor spelling.

I do like the debate, it makes you think, and that is always good.