So are Republicans now openly terrorists?
by Simon 369 Replies latest social current
-
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Berengaria: please reference an neutral, respected website
Translation: any website that agrees only with your view, right Berengaria? Any website that offers a different view to yours is neither "neutral" nor "respected".
Does that about sum up your view?
Berengaria: Never have I encounterd your assertion
1. it was not my assertion, it was someone else's assertion. I just quoted it. Take it up with them if you disagree. Educate them with your myopic view of the world, I'm sure they'd appreciate the enlightenment.
2. Well, now you can't say you've never "encountered" it.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
DG: I asked if you are simply trolling to pile up articles which agree with you. Are you? Did you read the CBO pages I linked?
Yes, I did read them. And, I posted information that questions the CBO's figures and offers a differing view. No, I am not trolling. To reiterate: I posted information that questions the CBO's figures and offers a differing view. You do understand that there's always at least two viewpoints on any important issue, don't you?
DG: It is not about quoting articles and opinions. It is about engaging the arguments therein
1. Engaging in dialogue without referencing source material is not tolerated here by some. I've been castigated for posting dialogue/argumentation-only replies, so I post source material to corraborate my statements. Apparently neither are acceptable.
2. If it's not about posting articles and opinions, why do you post articles and opinions, DG?
--
I don't have a problem with your opinions, DG; I don't have a problem with you referencing source material that supports your particular view. What I do have a problem with is you insisting I do not have the same right as you do. Why so intolerant?
-
Berengaria
Berengaria: please reference an neutral, respected website
Translation: any website that agrees only with your view, right Berengaria? Any website that offers a different view to yours is neither "neutral" nor "respected".
Does that about sum up your view?
Berengaria: Never have I encounterd your assertion
1. it was not my assertion, it was someone else's assertion. I just quoted it. Take it up with them if you disagree. Educate them with your myopic view of the world, I'm sure they'd appreciate the enlightenment.
2. Well, now you can't say you've never "encountered" it.
That wasn't me it was BOTR
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Sorry, Berengaria.
BOTR was right in the middle of a couple posts you made.
I apologize.
-
Berengaria
No problem
But I think it would be interesting if we could discuss what should be done about health care in this country.
I disagree with much that this administration is or isn't doing. But when we argue about foolish talking points, I am forced to defend against hyperbole.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
But I think it would be interesting if we could discuss what should be done about health care in this country.
Hmmm, I thought that's what we were doing. I believe many suggestions and much reference material has been provided throughout offering alternative ideas. Sadly, the information has been summarily marginalized, usually accompanied by not-so-flattering labels and insults.
-
sammielee24
incidental economist says - (from Kinsey) -
the entire bill for R&D for the pharmaceutical industry was less than $50 billion in 2006, far less than the “extra” we paid for drugs. Some will say it’s because we are subsidizing massive marketing in the US, which might be upwards of $40 billion in 2006. Again, far less than the “extra” amount.
Adding to this, we also tend to be early adopters of new drugs, which does raise our costs somewhat. Drugs are approved about two years sooner in the US than in other countries, and we like to take them immediately. Analysts say this makes the “average” pill taken in the US in 2006 about 118% more expensive than the “average” pill taken in other countries.
-
tootired2care
Yes, good info Sammies... In addition to passing on the cost of R&D to the U.S. consumer, these firms also set their prices high while their patents hold, to make massive profits. That's where "extra" amount goes, and they are getting very rich even more so with ACA.
-
kurtbethel
As much as I find Republicans to be useless, there's something really basic I am wondering about.
Isn't it a prerequisite to commit an act of terrorism to become a terrorist? I know that there has been a lot of mission creep with the supposed war on terror, to the point that people who import and sell fake knock off watches are now considered 'terrorists'. Even with this in mind, is there any actual person who feels terrorized by something that is exclusive to Republicans?
