opportunity to see how the left responds when they end up on the losing side in a democratic process, face masks, violence, vandalism.
[img] 
[/img]
Let me see, left wing European dictators - Stalin, Lenin and a few other USSR/GDR nutbags.
Right wing European dictators - Zog, Engelbert Dollfuss, Kurt Schuschnigg, Heydar Aliyev, Ilham Aliyev, Aleksandar Tsankov, Kimon Georgiev, Boris III, Kiril, Ante Paveli?, Nikos Sampson, Konstantin Päts, Philippe Pétain, Eduard Shevardnadze, Theodoros Pangalos, Ioannis Metaxas, Georgios Tsolakoglou, Konstantinos Logothetopoulos, Ioannis Rallis, Georgios Papadopoulos, Miklós Horthy, Ferenc Szálasi, Benito Mussolini, K?rlis Ulmanis, Antanas Smetona, Anton Mussert, Vidkun Quisling, Józef Pi?sudski, Joaquim Pimenta de Castro, Sidónio Pais, Óscar Carmona, António de Oliveira Salazar, Marcelo Caetano, Carol II, Ion Antonescu with Horia Sima, Milan Nedi?, Jozef Tiso, Miguel Primo de Rivera, Francisco Franco, Alexander I of Yugoslavia, Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, Milan Stojadinovi? and the one and only Adolf Hitler!!!!
So before you argue that the left is undemocratic, I think that history shows that it is actually the right that is undemocratic. This is because although military officers—and therefore coups—can occasionally favour the Left, the circumstances when they do so are comparatively rare, and not by any means universal even in the underdeveloped world. The general bias of both officers and coups is towards “Bonapartism”, a political move to the conservative side, or at best a corporative self-assertion of the armed forces as a special economic and professional pressure group within the status quo.
It's not a promise, it's a suggestion and nothing more.
See, to my mind, changing the statement to be:
"Donald J. Trump is [i]suggesting[/i] a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.."
Doesn't make any difference. It still sounds like something he thinks would be a good idea to do if he were president. No?
no more committal than saying 'let's give the NHS £xxxxx'
See that's a nice one because they literally said LET US give the NHS £350 million. As if it was something they really wanted to do if only we'd just [i]let[/i] them.
Well that's the whole problem with health care, and what I really don't understand why Americans are opposed to affordable health care.
I believe there can be a balance, especially in this context, between crazy private health insurance prices or general taxation like the NHS.
It's in no nations interest to have it's productive workforce ill or dying.
It's just another case of lying your tits off than blaming the electorate for falling for it.
What's it like being a winner, you losers?
Time for a little bit of history, peasants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapartism
The term was used more generally for a political movement that advocated a dictatorship or authoritarian centralized state, with a strongman charismatic leader based on anti-elitist rhetoric, army support, and conservatism.
I wonder who this describes?
[img] 
[/img]
Je Suis.... Trump?
It's just another case of lying your tits off than blaming the electorate for falling for it.
What's it like being a winner, you losers?
It's a very sad state of affairs, it's like the human race at least in the UK and the USA has devolved.
Personally, I intend to move to Nepal, where I intend to live as a goat.
It's basic English, 'calling for' something is no more committal than saying 'let's give the NHS £xxxxx'It's not a promise, it's a suggestion and nothing more.
If 'they' said 'we will do x, y, z' that's entirely different and they'd be nailed to the wall for being liars.
This.
ninfan - MemberWasn't anywhere near half as amusing as you having a big old hissy fit because I said .......
"hissy fit" ? 😆
Do you honestly think I give monkeys what your opinion is? 😆
I think your contribution to making right-wingers appear ridiculous is outstanding!
It's a very sad state of affairs, it's like the human race has devolved.
Yup, pretty much how I feel.
Do you honestly think I give monkeys what your opinion is?
The time you spend writing about Ninfan suggests he's personally very important to you in some weird way.
You've just written a whole post about him.
Looks like Trumpcare is going to be opposed by everyone, including possibly trump ?!?
the reps and Trump have spent years whining about ACA, but havent actually thought of anything better, remarkable
booting millions of americans healthcare cover was always going to be a tough sell
who really did know healthcare was so complicated? 😆
who really did know healthcare was so complicated?
It's actually really simple, it's a cartel, the drug companies tell the government how to run the health service via bribes. And the government does as it's told.
The time you spend writing about Ninfan suggests he's personally very important to you in some weird way.You've just written a whole post about him.
Personally I pity and worry for him, his is showing signs of being radicalised by the alt-right. Almost indoctrinated where he is unable to question anything they say. It's dangerous and worrying and could result in a terrorist attack of some sort.
outofbreath - Member
Do you honestly think I give monkeys what your opinion is?The time you spend writing about Ninfan suggests he's personally very important to you in some weird way.
You've just written a whole post about him.
There's some very strange logic going on there outofbreath.
Can you explain how because I point out that ninfan is only interested in scoring points and mocking people it means that I give a monkeys about his opinions? Can you do that?
I very rarely respond to ninfan's contributions but I take great delight in witnessing his ability to make right-wingers appear ridiculous 🙂
It's actually really simple, it's a cartel, the drug companies tell the government how to run the health service via bribes. And the government does as it's told.
You'd be surprised, I worked for a massive American pharma company and got to meet some of the top people. They were mostly actually pretty left wing and they repeatedly told me how jealous they were of our "sane healthcare and education systems". Then again, one of them started crying when he met one of the patients that a drug of ours had helped - so maybe they weren't your typical yank pharmaceutical. Remember, these are people who live in California and look upto or play golf with other pretty liberal tech billionaires.
Also, the regulatory blowback for bribing is pretty high - we couldn't give so much as an external technician a pencil without being shot at dawn.
My experience with non-american pharmaceutical companies has been decidedly worse, Americans seem to take rules much more seriously - and thus anti-corruption laws and laws designed to protect patients - much more seriously.
If only the US had a single unified health service that could be powerful enough to get what it needs... perhaps it could be run fedrally.
This is fascinating.
The difference is, if I may use an analogy, Volvo could have patented the seat belt, but chose not to, Ford patented the heated windscreen which is arguably a very effective safety device.
Think about that.
Remember " ... no boom & burst ..." from one of our ex-PM ... he must be telling the "truth". 😆
mikewsmith - Member
If only the US had a single unified health service that could be powerful enough to get what it needs... perhaps it could be run fedrally.
That would be great.
If the people who run said health services wouldn't make really bad deals with pharmaceutical companies.
That would be great.
If the people who run said health services wouldn't make really bad deals with pharmaceutical companies.
Would you consider 66 thousand dollars per patient, for a drug that is a first of its kind (genetically modified virus, designed to infect and kill cancer cells) a bad deal? Considering it took the best part of 25 years to develop?
Pharmaceutical companies have to make profits and have enough cash left over to invest in new drugs that keep them ahead of the generics manufacturers, if you want cheap drugs - go to generics.
Your drugs cost so much because of the amount of time and insane amount of regulatory and safety hoops that they go through.
Or good ones that is the point of it all.
But in Summary if somebody says they are Calling for something to happen you should assume they oppose that as a policy.
If somebody enacts a policy that looks like the first steps to something the Called for again you should certainly be aware that they have no intention of doing what they said.
The President is screwed if he can't understand how congress and the senate works. He can't exec order things like heathcare. The Republicans are 2 parties desperatly trying to get rid of the other one.
There is a limit to how many distractionary hand grenades you can throw before you start hitting your own side.
and almost perfectly timed... read into it what you like
[img] 
[/img]
B.S.
that keep them ahead of the generics manufacturers, if you want cheap drugs - go to generics.Your drugs cost so much because of the amount of time and insane amount of regulatory and safety hoops that they go through.
Ibuprofen is cheap because there is no patent on it.
Asprin is cheap because there is no patent on it.
Seat belts are free on every car because there is no patent on it.
See a pattern developing here?
Ibuprofen is cheap because there is no patent on it.
Asprin is cheap because there is no patent on it.Seat belts are free on every car because there is no patent on it.
See a pattern developing here?
https://www.baldwins.com/news/maintaining-market-share-after-your-patent-expires
. Boots Healthcare’s international patents for ibuprofen expired in the late 1980’s and yet in 2004 its ibuprofen product Nurofen™ made up 96% of all ibuprofen sales in pharmacies in New Zealand.
Yes, you have an amount of time to develop and recoup your costs on drugs. If you develop a feature for a car and then release it becasue it's a great idea you can still sell cars. If you produce a drug with no patent what are you going to sell.
See the gap in the logic there?
How much does an NHS prescription of ibuprofen cost?
I bet it's a lot more than 30p a packet that you pay at tesco.
Why is this? I ask.
Do you get Ibuprofen on prescription?
Do you know the cost they pay? Or are we back to make an accusation and then declare it fact until somebody goes and disproves you.
We alredy established that all drugs have patents just some are expired.
If you insist that drugs are sold at manufacturing cost from day 1 how do you fund the research and development costs?
Neurofen, lol, it's just generic ibuprofen with a seventy billion percentage mark up.
If people want to pay for a fancy box then fine, but the active ingredient is no better than the 30p per box stuff.
want to read my posts, have a think and try again?
Ibuprofen was patented. The Patent has expired hence generics are available.
If it was not patented then anyone could make it from day one.
How does the research get funded?
Again do you know what the NHS pays? Do you have that figure to hand? Are you making up "thoughts"to support your view point.
Do you get Ibuprofen on prescription?
Do you know the cost they pay? Or are we back to make an accusation and then declare it fact until somebody goes and disproves you.
Well I pay 30p at tesco, compared to about £7 so the extra costs of the prescription are going somewhere, maybe ask your local GP how he can afford to work part-time.
So that is a no then. Good to know that is all cleared up then.
Want to try and guess how Pharma companies fund the research into this sort of stuff?
yeah, Mattyfez... unfortunately you don't know what you are talking about. no disrespect meant, but you just don't.
New drugs are patented at the point of discovery, but the patent only lasts for 15 years. During that 15 years, the drug needs to go through pre-clinical (ie: lab and animal) and then clinical (ie: in human) testing. That whole process can take around 10 years - increasing by the day as the demand for further testing prior to market approval increases (ie: to ensure pt safety).
This leaves the pharma company with 5 years to sell their product before they lose the patent (goes generic).
In that 5 years, not only do they need to earn back the cost of the development of THAT drug (average is 2.6 billion dollars btw, some of which goes to me), but they also have to earn back the development cost of every drug that doesn't make it to market. At the moment only 10% of drugs that enter clinical trials get marketing approval.
THAT is why new drugs cost so much - it's not the cost per tablet - it's the costs associated with their discovery, development and licencing.
At the point that a drug goes generic, there are lorry loads of stock literally lined-up at the warehouses of generics manufacturers ready to go..... the pharma companies lose 99.8% of their sales on that product overnight (not an exaggeration).
Everyone in the industry knows why drugs are so expensive in the US:
1. Direct to consumer advertising
2. Private healthcare providers
3. Private Health insurance
The reason we pay less for drugs in the UK is NICE
7h
Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump
I am working on a new system where there will be competition in the Drug Industry. Pricing for the American people will come way down!
Oh god, this fills me with dread. As somebody who has only just found out that the healthcare industry is complicated - the mind boggles at what sort of moronic suggestion he's about to make.
the mind boggles at what sort of moronic suggestion he's about to make.
I think you have missed the point here, he doesn't actually need to make a suggestion as he is working on it. Working on it is the new word for cheque is in the post.
yeah - my worry is that this will become the dialogue around his failure to reform the American Healthcare system - It's the nasty pharma companies.
As has been ably demonstrated - people are already conditioned to believe that, and so it seems like an easy sell to the deplorables.
I take solace in the fact that the US pharma giants probably have some clout with the republican party.
For the record - I think Americans are being heinously overcharged for their healthcare. But that's to do with the lack of a strong public healthcare alternative to force the insurance companies to compete based on price.
Yep for a pattern...
Invent (or occasionally identify an actual problem)
Tell everyone you are WORKING on it REALLY HARD and you have INSTRUCTED PEOPLE to DO STUFF
In case people remind you of this have ready a list of people to blame
Democrats
Main Stream Media
Republicans
Everyone ELSE
If fails TWEET SOMETHING EggsTRAvIGaNT and call Spicer
Sums it up, remember everyone is out to get you, don't trust anyone then you will make yourself safe...
or is it treat others as you wish to be treated. I can't imagine the scene if a bunch of Americans were subjected to that in a foireign country.
Do you get Ibuprofen on prescription?
Do you know the cost they pay? Or are we back to make an accusation and then declare it fact until somebody goes and disproves you.
We alredy established that all drugs have patents just some are expired.
If you insist that drugs are sold at manufacturing cost from day 1 how do you fund the research and development costs?POSTED 6 HOURS AGO #
SAME WAY WE FUND WAR! 💡 and yes i ment to shout.
There was an Iranian woman in a wheelchair, she was about 80, wearing a little mauve cardigan, and they were yelling at her – “Arabic? Arabic?”. They screamed at her “ARABIC?” at the top of their voices, and finally she intuited what they wanted and I heard her say “Farsi”. And I thought heaven help her, she’s Iranian, what’s going to happen?
To be fair even an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair could be a threat to the United States, and after all this is all about keeping America safe - I know because I've heard Donald Trump say so. It's definitely not about whipping up fear, mistrust, and hatred of Muslims.
SAME WAY WE FUND WAR! and yes i ment to shout.
Not sure if sarcastic or not.... National funding then flog it to other countries for a profit?
Is confused
Does "is working on" rank higher than "calling for" in the continuum of
Doing stuff <---------------> not doing stuff and then laughing at lefties for falling for it?
'calling for' means someone else will do it and ' working on' means it's only three days till golf so I can stall till then.
"Is confused
Does "is working on" rank higher than "calling for" in the continuum of
Doing stuff <---------------> not doing stuff and then laughing at lefties for falling for it?"
"Minded" is my favourite one.
"working on" is also the new way of taking the credit for something multiple times by using carefully staged announcements - with the obvious difference to the usual announcements which involve actually doing something.
In other news (it's CNN so presumably #fakenews) even one of his supporters has said he's wrong about the tapping business
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/wiretap-congress-sean-spicer-response/
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/wiretap-congress-sean-spicer-response/
How exactly do you, as a Republican, politely explain that POTUS doesn't have a clue what he's doing?
