CAD, you've called for a lock to this thread 3 times now. Can we expect to see the same outrage in the future?
Wasn't it just last night you were taking a large roll in the 'Kerry bought out Amazon' thread?
Wasn't it just last night you were taking a large roll in the 'Kerry bought out Amazon' thread?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
When the troll is that obvious and when a different thread was locked earlier today for being a "troll" thread. Sure.
This was nothing but flamebait posted by Napalm as was the thread that was locked. Both entirely flamebait and both should be locked.
CkG
Edit for you edit - Yes, and that was information. Kerry's book is not widely available and has been largly kept out of the media yet his other book is easily available at the local library. You may not like the thread but it did have a subject to debate - this thread is an inflamitory troll as we already have a thread discussing kerry's 'Nam stuff.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
Your signature line might need to be changed..
Slavin said his only regret was not airing an intriguing Diane Sawyer report on the coverage earlier. Sawyer reported that Dean was using a special microphone that night that filters out crowd noise to heighten his voice; other videotapes taken illustrate that his "scream" was barely audible to his live audience.
To Trippi, Sawyer's report felt like a Super Bowl referee admitting ? after the game ? that he blew a call that decided the outcome.
"Unfortunately, no one ran that 633 times," he said. "ABC, to its credit, did it once."
more at: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040208/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_dean_s_scream
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Dude - you called him a war criminal and said he had testified to this. When push came to shove, you posted some lame crap that did not say that at all. Silly rabbit...
In case you missed it, your behaviour - and the behaviour of neo-cons like you - was exactly what I was trying to parody with this post. I've made my point - I'm outta here...
N
I see what's happening here. Galt posts specious threads with no credible supporting sources in response to the numerous anti-Bush threads that appear here in P&N. See? He's "teaching" us a lesson. Oh brother . . . So in response to this action, Napalm posts something that is equally ludicrous and also without any credible sources. Let's not get carried away here and have everyone sink to Galt's level. It's clear he's a trolling POS, so just let him wallow in it.
Yeah the fact that the mods haven't locked this must mean they have an anti-Bush bias. Once again the poor white American conservatives are being oppressed by the liberals/darkies/Jews/heathen savages.
Zephyr
Zephyr
John Kerry is a typical Washington moron. BTW folks. Kerry is no longer for sale. He has been bought by Democratic special interests. Don't believe me? Look at his Senate record. It's scary reading.
Democratic Enemies List
Kerry's simple-minded populism shows his is a campaign about nothing.
If this column sounds like one four years ago, that's because Democrats are running against their usual list of "enemy" industries. The party's standard trope is that you're being denied things you need and deserve because enemies are keeping them from you, cheap drugs being today's case in point.
Let's make sense of the industry once more for a Democratic presidential cadre now reaching a high pitch of populist dudgeon. There's a reason analysts, investors and pharmaceutical reps talk about a "pipeline." In one end goes a bunch of money, and out comes a dribble of products years later. The metaphor is also useful in understanding drug pricing. Whatever comes out the end, whether it's nose drops or a chemotherapy drug, is priced at whatever level will allow its maximum contribution to recouping all the money that went into the front end of the pipe.
Abbott Labs demonstrated this effect when it recently raised the price of its aging AIDS drug, Norvir, by 400%. Activist groups were outraged, never mind that Abbott froze the old price in place for charity groups and continues to make the drug available at cost in developing countries. Abbott was accused of "greed." But wait? Wasn't it already stipulated that drug companies were maximally greedy? How could a change in Abbott's greed state account for a change in pricing strategy?
In fact, Abbott was recently saluted by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for making cheap drugs available in Africa. But Norvir, introduced in 1996, is no longer a drug of choice. Instead it's been relegated to a "booster" role in cocktail therapies consisting of new, higher-priced drugs from rival manufacturers (though much of the therapeutic benefit actually comes from combining their pricey products with cheap Norvir).
Abbott saw other drug makers generating large revenues from its drug and is attempting to tilt more of the revenue flow from treating AIDS back to itself. Other companies will respond by cutting their own prices a bit to maintain market share and maximize their own revenues. Which goes to show what a competitive market AIDS drugs are, with 12 essential medicines now on the World Health Organization list.
Drug companies are in the business of funding large R&D establishments, which typically account for a bigger share of total costs than manufacturing and distribution. That's why companies can charge high prices to rich, insured Westerners and next to nothing to poor Africans--because any price that's even a penny above current manufacturing cost produces at least some revenue to support the research bill.
Now we come to the politics. It's tempting to say in these circumstances, "Hey, we can mandate lower prices for Medicare, treating American retirees the way we treat AIDS sufferers in Africa, because drug companies will keep making and selling drugs even at a much lower price as long as it's higher than current manufacturing costs."
That's right, and the price of drug company stocks will crash instantly, and no more capital will be available to research new products.
This is not really hard to understand, and certainly our Ivy League-educated Democratic presidential candidates can understand it. Were any of them to land in office, you can bet their threats against the drug industry would be quickly filed away in a circular keeping place until the next election. President Kerry wouldn't want to bear the political cost of its collapsing stock values, massive layoffs and the media reporting the folding up of research into cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
If this were only Mr. Kerry's problem we might wonder about the IQ behind his campaign rhetoric. Instead we are forced to wonder about the contempt nearly the whole Democratic field seems to feel for the Democratic base.
No demagogue, left or right, fails to present himself as champion of the great, victimized majority against some tiny and exploitive elite. This argument is convenient for two reasons. Difficult issues like health-care financing, involving real tensions between hard-to-reconcile goals, can be reduced to utmost simplicity: On one side are the legitimate claims of voters who want cheaper drugs or whatever; on the other are the illegitimate claims of those who "stand in the way."
Populist claptrap serves another purpose, visible on the very persons of the candidates: They swell with confidence and invulnerability when posing as defenders of the "little guy" rather than as champions of the party's own array of special interests and voting blocs (which is what they are).
The force really at work is fear--fear on the part of Democratic leaders that they have nothing to offer; fear that their party's captivity by groups tied to existing programs forecloses any chance of innovative thinking. Notice that the party did not even wait for eight years of unrivaled Clinton prosperity to expire before Al Gore, in a panic, reverted to what a Washington Post editorial called "primitive business bashing" as a substitute for saying what some Democratic lobby group somewhere wouldn't like. Notice what a miserable disappointment even Howard Dean has been in this regard.
Notice, too, the wonder of John Kerry, an asterisk six weeks ago, who reached his present eminence based on the repetition of meaningless phrases: "I know something about aircraft carriers for real." "Bring it on." "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
There is, literally, nothing else to the Kerry campaign. He's the default option of Democratic voters after the amazing rise and fall of Howard Dean, with the mother of all buyer's remorse coming down the pike about a minute or two behind. That's too bad but as a party they asked for it--and will keep doing so until they stop relying on the mindless naming of "villains" in place of dealing honestly with the voters whom they claim to represent.
link
Democratic Enemies List
Kerry's simple-minded populism shows his is a campaign about nothing.
If this column sounds like one four years ago, that's because Democrats are running against their usual list of "enemy" industries. The party's standard trope is that you're being denied things you need and deserve because enemies are keeping them from you, cheap drugs being today's case in point.
Let's make sense of the industry once more for a Democratic presidential cadre now reaching a high pitch of populist dudgeon. There's a reason analysts, investors and pharmaceutical reps talk about a "pipeline." In one end goes a bunch of money, and out comes a dribble of products years later. The metaphor is also useful in understanding drug pricing. Whatever comes out the end, whether it's nose drops or a chemotherapy drug, is priced at whatever level will allow its maximum contribution to recouping all the money that went into the front end of the pipe.
Abbott Labs demonstrated this effect when it recently raised the price of its aging AIDS drug, Norvir, by 400%. Activist groups were outraged, never mind that Abbott froze the old price in place for charity groups and continues to make the drug available at cost in developing countries. Abbott was accused of "greed." But wait? Wasn't it already stipulated that drug companies were maximally greedy? How could a change in Abbott's greed state account for a change in pricing strategy?
In fact, Abbott was recently saluted by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for making cheap drugs available in Africa. But Norvir, introduced in 1996, is no longer a drug of choice. Instead it's been relegated to a "booster" role in cocktail therapies consisting of new, higher-priced drugs from rival manufacturers (though much of the therapeutic benefit actually comes from combining their pricey products with cheap Norvir).
Abbott saw other drug makers generating large revenues from its drug and is attempting to tilt more of the revenue flow from treating AIDS back to itself. Other companies will respond by cutting their own prices a bit to maintain market share and maximize their own revenues. Which goes to show what a competitive market AIDS drugs are, with 12 essential medicines now on the World Health Organization list.
Drug companies are in the business of funding large R&D establishments, which typically account for a bigger share of total costs than manufacturing and distribution. That's why companies can charge high prices to rich, insured Westerners and next to nothing to poor Africans--because any price that's even a penny above current manufacturing cost produces at least some revenue to support the research bill.
Now we come to the politics. It's tempting to say in these circumstances, "Hey, we can mandate lower prices for Medicare, treating American retirees the way we treat AIDS sufferers in Africa, because drug companies will keep making and selling drugs even at a much lower price as long as it's higher than current manufacturing costs."
That's right, and the price of drug company stocks will crash instantly, and no more capital will be available to research new products.
This is not really hard to understand, and certainly our Ivy League-educated Democratic presidential candidates can understand it. Were any of them to land in office, you can bet their threats against the drug industry would be quickly filed away in a circular keeping place until the next election. President Kerry wouldn't want to bear the political cost of its collapsing stock values, massive layoffs and the media reporting the folding up of research into cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
If this were only Mr. Kerry's problem we might wonder about the IQ behind his campaign rhetoric. Instead we are forced to wonder about the contempt nearly the whole Democratic field seems to feel for the Democratic base.
No demagogue, left or right, fails to present himself as champion of the great, victimized majority against some tiny and exploitive elite. This argument is convenient for two reasons. Difficult issues like health-care financing, involving real tensions between hard-to-reconcile goals, can be reduced to utmost simplicity: On one side are the legitimate claims of voters who want cheaper drugs or whatever; on the other are the illegitimate claims of those who "stand in the way."
Populist claptrap serves another purpose, visible on the very persons of the candidates: They swell with confidence and invulnerability when posing as defenders of the "little guy" rather than as champions of the party's own array of special interests and voting blocs (which is what they are).
The force really at work is fear--fear on the part of Democratic leaders that they have nothing to offer; fear that their party's captivity by groups tied to existing programs forecloses any chance of innovative thinking. Notice that the party did not even wait for eight years of unrivaled Clinton prosperity to expire before Al Gore, in a panic, reverted to what a Washington Post editorial called "primitive business bashing" as a substitute for saying what some Democratic lobby group somewhere wouldn't like. Notice what a miserable disappointment even Howard Dean has been in this regard.
Notice, too, the wonder of John Kerry, an asterisk six weeks ago, who reached his present eminence based on the repetition of meaningless phrases: "I know something about aircraft carriers for real." "Bring it on." "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
There is, literally, nothing else to the Kerry campaign. He's the default option of Democratic voters after the amazing rise and fall of Howard Dean, with the mother of all buyer's remorse coming down the pike about a minute or two behind. That's too bad but as a party they asked for it--and will keep doing so until they stop relying on the mindless naming of "villains" in place of dealing honestly with the voters whom they claim to represent.
link
such language..does your mother know you talk this way?
of course i suppose it depends on the meaning of the word "we"..HAHAHAHA...
American Heritage Dictionary definition of "we"
Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject
then of course there is this:
linky
explain to me again how "we" doesn't really mean "we"...and "voting for" the iraq war resolution doesn't really mean "voting for" the resolution....
piehole...HAHAHAHA...gotta love these kids, eh CAD?
i am darn sure that if i replaced "Kerry" with "Bush" in every one of the quotes above, you would be calling for Bush to tried for war crimes. Oh, i forgot, you already feel that way! HAHAHAHA
I don't understand what your point is. We fought in Vietnam to stop Communism, just as we fought in Iraq to stop Weapons of Mass Destruction. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Heartsurgeon, take you're bleeding heart liberal whining elsewhere and come back to talk about war when you learn about such things as "acceptable collateral casualties" and "imminent threat."
Zephyr
Zephyr
ManSnake
Diamond Member
- Oct 26, 2000
- 4,749
- 1
- 0
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Your response truly cracks me up... If what you have quoted makes Kerry a 'war criminal', then I guess GWB would have to be tried in the war crime tribunal immediately.
Anyway, feel free to ask your Iowegian friend to mount a joint-strike on me, I was designing fighter jets for this country when you were still sucking on your mama's teets.
Thanks for the laugh, heartsurgeon. btw, I fart in your general direction
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Sounds like he was kicking ass and taking names to me. Def the guy I'd want on my side. I could only hope to act as bravely if put into a simular situation.
The thing is, you could never swap Kerry with Bush there as Bush was too busy getting drunk and snorting coke in the middle of Texas. Not too much combat seen there.
The only war wounds Bush recieved was the damage to his liver and brain cells.
I'm still not clear on something...
CAD, do you think this thread should be locked?
Just an FYI, if you feel that a thread should be locked, you have options at your disposal like using the "Forum Issues" section..
:beer:
CAD, do you think this thread should be locked?
Just an FYI, if you feel that a thread should be locked, you have options at your disposal like using the "Forum Issues" section..
:beer:
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Insane3D
I'm still not clear on something...
CAD, do you think this thread should be locked?
Just an FYI, if you feel that a thread should be locked, you have options at your disposal like using the "Forum Issues" section..
:beer:
Yes.
Actually what should have been done is the MODS should have locked this quickly like the other thread.
<shrugs> whatever.
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter