To those who claim the race riots etc are the result of the president, notice how employment has gone up for those typically considered disenfranchised.
Notice how as a % of support the current president has a much higher number. And all of this for a guy that reminds people of my generation of Clint Eastwoodâ(TM)s companion orangutan Clyde.
All these fools need to man up (or the pc version of that for whatever they identify as) and realize that the president does not have the kind of power they think he does and we all have a chance to express our political opinion. Itâ(TM)s called voting. Rioters in the streets are not viable. Terrorist organizations are not viable and should be treated as such (terrorist organizations meaning any non government group [sadly this means the bureau of land management is not a bunch of terrorists, but they try hard to look it] which uses or threatens the use of violence against any one in an effort to induce political or civil change).
It is simple as the 4 liberty boxes:
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
Ammo should only be used to defend active aggression when all other measures have failed and you are willing to pay the price for it, your own life, in defense of another's
Actually he has done quite a bit, he has gotten nationâ(TM)s top talk together (Israel and Saudi, N/S Korea), rolled back regulations, and made it so that the DEA is not sending out live letters for importing meds. That last one was packaged with the ability to treat your condition as you and your physician see fit even if it is not even a phase 1 trial.
One may not like the language or manner he achieved it, but he has done more, for minorities and alternative lifestyles than any recent president.
As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon
I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.
People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
To those who modded me as a troll, I am aware you do not know what trolling is. I expressed a dissenting opinion, and you chose to bury it rather than respond. You are cowards.
I stand by my right to chose what business I do. If you do not want to do business with me, that is fine, but I have the legal right, as does any closely held company in the US to do business within my religious parameters. The US Supreme Court has already backed up that opinion. Feel free to boycott me, I am good at what I do and my skills are in more demand than I can reply to anyways, and I could retire now should I want to. I will stand by my freedom.
You dislike me, you feel I am a bigot and misanthrope, why would you want to give me your money to begin with? Further were the shoe on the other foot, do you want the government telling you that you must do business with me? I did not think so.
You are full of vitriol and shame, I am full of neither.
As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon
I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.
People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
Social values by community? Are you *trying* to push us back into the era of segregation?
Sorry, that was a silly question, of course you are, because you're an idiot troll. Try harder next time.
What has segregation got to do with social values by community?
Social values by community is like obscenity, the values are set by the people of that community.
So: Do you take off your hat when you enter a building? Social value by community.
Do you hold the door open for a female? SVxC.
Do you use sir when addressing an older individual? SVxC.
Racists see racism in everything. Those of us who are not, do not.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
I agree with your description of the situation as accurate, I however do not agree the situation is uncorrectable or right however.
Back to being AC again, but I am the one you were replying too.
Rather than simply make a quip, would you care to show a general trend of neglect in the pharmaceutical industry? While there are instances of abuse, the over all standards for pharmaceuticals in the US for safety is far better than what one would expect from your comment.
I beg to differ. Are you unaware of the 6+ year history of enforcement actions against the pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy for gross violations of health and safety standards? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-ranbaxy-ban-idUSBREA0N06Z20140124. And the FDA enforcements were only started after the pharma giant had been documented by private auditing firms as intentionally neglecting health and safety standards in their drug production processes. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-28/news/39580238_1_ranbaxy-case-us-drug-regulator-paonta-sahib
That's 3 extra years that American health was at-risk because the pharmaceutical industry was allowed to rely on non-government, private safety inspectors.
You can 'beg to differ" all you want to, but you made my point for me with "FDA enforcements were only started after the pharma giant had been documented by private auditing firms".
In fact, I am well aware of that case and it was the specific case I had in mind when I mentioned the exception that proves the rule.
Are you certain you are responding to me in this stream? It seems more in place with another comment I made about the Interstate Commerce Clause which is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. Regardless, it is at best a red herring.
I am not certain why you think my ideas are Libertarian, especially given that I rate libertarians somewhere along the lines of neocons (I agree with them about 50%).
You make several comments that are absolutely falsifiable however. such as: "government agency is always more trustworthy than a private company"
I do find it interesting that you accuse me of being, or at least having, libertarian [ideas] and then go on to describe a libertarian viewpoint. Not being Libertarian, I do not agree with that viewpoint.
In any case, you have failed to make you case with me, I see that you are simply going to be dogmatic and provide neither reason nor proof. I suspect it is because we have very different qualifications for what is a "reason" and what is "proof". So how about we simply agree to disagree? You can think I am a libertarian, and I will think you are wrong. One of us will be correct.
Thank you for providing another viewpoint. I do appreciate other people rephrasing things within their own experience as I know my own view points are only expressed through my own lenses. Diversity helps people get past hangups they may have with my particular affectations.
Actually no I did not say that. Again you are making a link that private regulation is no regulation, and even in the OP I did not say simply private regulation I said with oversight. It is really no different that hiring contractors, which is something we do frequently via the Federal Government and in private industry.
I have already given a simple example of how it could work, twice now you have simply responded with a dogmatic statement and no connecting evidence or reason.
If you do not provide any I will have to infer three things:
1) You simply believe only the government is capable of doing the work
2) All government workers must be actual government works and not contractors
3) The government is incorruptible.
Since I know that all 3 of these are historically and factually false we will have no where left to go.
How does the existence of radium products grant a power to the Federal Givernment? {spelling intentional). I was under the impression that we had things called laws that laid out what the government could and could not do
Maybe you are an ends justifies the means kind of person.. I am a deontologist.
If that phraseology works for you
If you really want to understand it then go look at J Woods / D Walton article which is a nice basic intro to the subject.
In other words, provide no oversight at all while an "independent" firm rubber stamps all the industry's apps for a completely legal fee which ends up going to the executives of the fake company via bonuses, then let it fold and start up a new one.
Privatized enforcement is no enforcement. If it can't be overseen by the government it needs to either be banned. You can open up the question of if it needs to be regulated at all, but providing the illusion of safety and regulation when there is none is far worse.
Nowhere does the OP say that, you are jumping way down an argument and not providing your work in between. How I read the OP is that private contractors do the heavy lifting and then the FDA comes back in and audits the results. If you audit one in 3, then see a group fails to catch something so you audit their entire batch, that is still substantial oversight.
I also would be willing to jump in and say the FDA is overstepping what little role it should have and might be provided by the ICC (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and would even be willing to say that it may only regulate the actual commerce and not the actual products, however I think the OP is a step in the right direction.
We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"
