|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up. Wait, yes it has Show nested quote +(Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.) Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it.
I bet if we dig into that people have tried to change it, but some level of lobbying prevented it from getting updated to modern standards.
|
You know what's kind of funny? I actually have no idea who is going to win the Republican nomination because all the candidates are shit.
Jeb: has enough money to limp to the end (maybe)
Trump: conventional wisdom last week says he would win, now not so sure
Fiorina: has peaked and will only drop as her "legacy" at HP drags her down
Carson: the black version of Jindal, or what happens when a neurosurgeon gives himself a lobotomy
Rubio and Cruz have some scraps of support. Kasich seems like he says reasonable things, but no one is listening to him. The rest aren't running for the nomination, they're running as jokes (to paraphrase Seth Myers at the Press Correspondent's dinner). Honestly, it's starting to look like a marathon: who has enough money to make it to the finish line. Heck, I'm surprised some of these candidates are even still in this thing.
|
About Carson being against muslims as president from a couple days ago:
Given the chance to clarify later, Carson didn’t back off a bit:
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
washingtonpost.com
I am laughing so hard right now. What are odds for that being a change of opinion about Kim Davis vs he actually meant what he said ?
|
On September 22 2015 05:50 Introvert wrote:
Too bad, but the debates screwed him. He was nowhere to be found. Now if some of the other zero percent people could get out (looking at you Graham).
GH, you are making me want nothing more than for Sanders to go down in flames.
It's not the debates, he never got off the ground with any grassroots funding. All of his money went to his SuperPAC and with few volunteers and no money he couldn't pay the people he hired to generate/handle donations.
It's not as if you ever considered Sanders in the first place. That you prefer Hillary win, just to spite me, makes me laugh.
|
looking at a betting site Jeb is the strong favourite.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=481890
I should've looked at the betting aggregator site, but I forget what it is.
I think there's a certainly a good chance Jeb will win; kinda like how Romney did, its not that he has massive support or that people love him, its just that he's a reasonable candidate people don't object to as much (or that doesn't flame out on their own).
Though I think there's still a strong chance that nobody has the votes to win it on their own, so it becomes a negotiated deal.
|
On September 22 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 05:50 Introvert wrote:
Too bad, but the debates screwed him. He was nowhere to be found. Now if some of the other zero percent people could get out (looking at you Graham).
GH, you are making me want nothing more than for Sanders to go down in flames. It's not the debates, he never got off the ground with any grassroots funding. All of his money went to his SuperPAC and with few volunteers and no money he couldn't pay the people he hired to generate/handle donations. It's not as if you ever considered Sanders in the first place. That you prefer Hillary win, just to spite me, makes me laugh.
Walker had funding and poll numbers, but they plummeted after the first debate.He was never Jeb level, but he wasn't like Rick Perry or Graham.
Nah, no spite here. Just an off the cuff comment. I still don't really have an opinion. if he loses though, I'm sure we'll have get a nice long post about it to pass the time.
|
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, or the 'the market knows best' dogma, he might not have lived to tell the tale.
|
On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale.
So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way.
|
On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale.
the funny part about it is that a good amount of people in that most recent debate defended people who think their religion should be part of their public life, defended public officials who do what they want because something's against their religious beliefs and now he's saying that's a no-go for a president.
|
On September 22 2015 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up. Wait, yes it has (Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.) Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it. I bet if we dig into that people have tried to change it, but some level of lobbying prevented it from getting updated to modern standards.
Its possible. Its also possible that the testing the FDA requires to prove bioequivalency is so expensive that at the old price no one was willing to do it. So our options are the FDA is corrupt or incompetent. You are coming around plansix!
|
On September 22 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up. Wait, yes it has Show nested quote +(Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.) Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it.
The main reason loopholes like that exist is because if you don't grant exclusivity no one will study old drugs or study drugs in populations that are hard to enroll in clinical trials but vitally important for the drug (children stick out). It's the only legitimate carrot the FDA has to offer; it's the same way they manage to actually gather RCT data on "tried and true" drugs that have been on the market for ages just because people think they're probably okay.
There is nothing else the FDA can do to encourage these studies with their current regulatory power, and companies will never ever do them without incentive that the market virtually never offers independently. Monopolies are all the incentive they have.
Last I heard they're actually working on modifying the language in the CFR to allow them to set limits on price changes (I believe it was post-Colcrys that this push got big) but public comment is a real bitch.
+ Show Spoiler +also, it's not the FDA's fault the U.S. has decided rich people deserve to live longer than poor people
|
On September 22 2015 06:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 05:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up. Wait, yes it has (Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.) Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it. I bet if we dig into that people have tried to change it, but some level of lobbying prevented it from getting updated to modern standards. Its possible. Its also possible that the testing the FDA requires to prove bioequivalency is so expensive that at the old price no one was willing to do it. So our options are the FDA is corrupt or incompetent. You are coming around plansix!
Omg which means that the FDA must be exactly like the private sector which means that we should literally throw money at it!!!!!!
|
On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:
So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way.
If this thread has taught me one thing, it's that a lot of people here have very little idea what Christianity actually says, or why, but have strong opinions against it anyway.
Like the anti-abortion stance being a continuation of a much, much older anti-infanticide effort.
|
On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way.
No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian.
And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions.
|
On September 22 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:
So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. If this thread has taught me one thing, it's that a lot of people here have very idea what Christianity actually says, or why, but have strong opinions against it anyway.
As a Christian who has read the bible and studied history, I completely agree. The exact same thing could be said for people who claim to understand the Islam.
On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions.
I know that people suck and religion is the excuse. And if taken away, they will find another excuse, like politics, skin color, language or whatever reasons people will think up. Humans have never needed a specific reason to be shitty to each other.
|
On September 22 2015 06:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 05:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up. Wait, yes it has (Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.) Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it. I bet if we dig into that people have tried to change it, but some level of lobbying prevented it from getting updated to modern standards. Its possible. Its also possible that the testing the FDA requires to prove bioequivalency is so expensive that at the old price no one was willing to do it. So our options are the FDA is corrupt or incompetent. You are coming around plansix! Omg which means that the FDA must be exactly like the private sector which means that we should literally throw money at it!!!!!!
I know there is sarcasm here, but what the sarcasm is supposed to mean is so incredibly unclear that I am not sure your own mother, father, or spouse would even know what your point is.
|
On September 22 2015 06:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 22 2015 06:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 05:56 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 05:48 cLutZ wrote:How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up. Wait, yes it has (Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.) Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it. I bet if we dig into that people have tried to change it, but some level of lobbying prevented it from getting updated to modern standards. Its possible. Its also possible that the testing the FDA requires to prove bioequivalency is so expensive that at the old price no one was willing to do it. So our options are the FDA is corrupt or incompetent. You are coming around plansix! Omg which means that the FDA must be exactly like the private sector which means that we should literally throw money at it!!!!!! I know there is sarcasm here, but what the sarcasm is supposed to mean is so incredibly unclear that I am not sure your own mother, father, or spouse would even know what your point is.
Now you know how the rest of us feel when you post.
|
On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions.
Islam is neither better nor worse. In fact, about 90% of its viewpoints are exactly the same as Christianity, and it is probably even more similar to Judaism. The problem is that there is this idea floating around that the only true Islam is a very radical form of fundamental Islam. This is supported by there being a relatively high number of vocal and violent fundamental muslims, and the middle east giving them the ideal arena to go postal.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rather than blaming the fda, seems like the general trend of innovation here is towards mergers and consolidation of generic manufacturers. good private sector efficiency at work, for the shareholders of course.
but the general approach taken by the fda on tehse things is reliance on private sector to tidy an old drug up in exchange of exclusivity, a rather market oriented approach that has now spectacularly backfired after some clever kids tinkered with it.
|
On September 22 2015 06:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:
So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. If this thread has taught me one thing, it's that a lot of people here have very idea what Christianity actually says, or why, but have strong opinions against it anyway. As a Christian who has read the bible and studied history, I completely agree. The exact same thing could be said for people who claim to understand the Islam. Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. I know that people suck and religion is the excuse. And if taken away, they will find another excuse, like politics, skin color, language or whatever reasons people will think up. Humans have never needed a specific reason to be shitty to each other.
I realise there are things far more objectionable than religion, and if you look at the worst terror regimes in history (the Nazi party, Stalinist Russia, post WWII USA), they didn't need religion to justify their crimes.
But in the USA, where people are still remarkably free in their expression, no ideology should be exempt from critical inspection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
