PDA

View Full Version : Arlen Specter Morphs from Elephant to Ass: Dems Now Filibuster-proof, GOP Cries



Stick
28th April 09, 06:38 PM
http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/images/tv_16nov04_ArlenSpecter_150.jpgIn another sign that the GOP is rapidly losing its grandeur, Arlen Specter has abandoned his fellow pachyderms to join those damn, dirty donkeys! (CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.switch.reax/?iref=mpstoryview)

Assuming Al Franken is confirmed and takes his seat in the senate, this gives the democratic party the coveted 60 to "hahahaha, that's really all you've got" filibuster-proof majority they've had a hard on for since, well, all the time, really.

Specter pointed out in his announcement that 200,000 registered voters in his home state of PA changed their party registration from Republican to Democrat during the last election, and he blamed it- along with his own defection- on the GOP's failure to meet the needs of moderate conservatives while doing everything they can to gobble the hard-right's collective electoral knob.

I'm sure that's not exactly how he put it, but you get my point!

Republicans have been quick to say that Specter was losing ground in polls of registered PA Grand Ol' Party goers (Republican voters) to some more-right-wing guy by the name of Pat Toomey (former member of the House). Apparently, in a primary election where-in only republicans- those that are left- can vote for who amongst them runs, Toomey was ahead 40-something to 20-something. Of course, by side-stepping the republican party and appealing to middle of the road voters, Specter will likely put Toomey in the dirt. (Fox News) (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/specter-secures-seat-party-switch/)

So, for those of us on the left side of things in American politics, let's drink a glass to the erosion of conservative values, promulgation of the socialist agenda and generally revel in the primacy of our political ideology over that of our vanquished foes!

And, for those of us on the right side of things in American politics, let's down a double and pour one out for the politics of God and the rich, xenophobia and the certainty that if the gays get married we'll magically become homos.

Wounded Ronin
28th April 09, 06:46 PM
If the GOP wants to be relevant they need to become more centrist, as opposed to focused on enraging elderly white men who will die in little bit.

elipson
28th April 09, 09:10 PM
Jebus the US needs a third party.

Republicans need to stop alienating voters by chasing the extreme conservative right. What do they think is going to happen? The extreme republicans are going to get pissed and vote democrat? Ya. Cuz that makes sense.

MrBadGuy
28th April 09, 10:15 PM
Sounds like he switched to save his own ass, since blue is in this season.

HappyOldGuy
28th April 09, 10:23 PM
Definetely in it for his skin, but it's not about blue being in this season. He's not chasing general election votes. He's facing a primary opponent who's receiving crazy amounts of funding from right wing pubs with a vendetta against specter.

SFGOON
28th April 09, 10:34 PM
Long live the Soviet Motherland!
Built by the people's mighty hand!
Long live the union, united and free!
Strong in our friendship, forged in fire!
Long may our crimson flag inspire!
Through all the nations for all men to see!

Stick
28th April 09, 10:36 PM
SFGOON, have you been taking attendance at local part meetings?

Phrost
28th April 09, 10:53 PM
Specter was going to lose in the primaries as a Republican. He was down 20% in the polls against his would-be rival. This is 100% a calculated move to save his cushy seat in Washington, and anyone attributing it to something resembling integrity needs to go scrub off their fucking Kool-aid moustache.

Dagon Akujin
28th April 09, 11:51 PM
^^^^^^^^^US Senate? Integrity? You're kidding, right?

mrm1775
29th April 09, 03:18 AM
The balance between the pussies and the assholes has been violated. Things are going to get really stupid now.

If Specter really had balls he would have declared himself an independent.

jkdbuck76
29th April 09, 06:42 AM
Sphincter and Lieberman (Senator Palpatine).

They could have been the Tanto and Lone Ranger of the Senate.

My question is this: what are the Dems offering to him?

jnp
29th April 09, 10:07 AM
If the GOP wants to be relevant they need to become more centrist, as opposed to focused on enraging elderly white men who will die in little bit.
The problem with this line of thought is that they always seems to be more of these waiting to take their place, no matter how many die off.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th April 09, 10:24 AM
Specter was going to lose in the primaries as a Republican. He was down 20% in the polls against his would-be rival. This is 100% a calculated move to save his cushy seat in Washington, and anyone attributing it to something resembling integrity needs to go scrub off their fucking Kool-aid moustache.

^^^
this.

The test will come about after the primaries if the Dems vote to keep him as "their guy" or if some other cat throws his hat into the ring to run against him for that seat, then defeating the Republican to retain his seat.

HappyOldGuy
29th April 09, 10:56 AM
^^^
this.

The test will come about after the primaries if the Dems vote to keep him as "their guy" or if some other cat throws his hat into the ring to run against him for that seat, then defeating the Republican to retain his seat.
Remember though. This is the senate and he's an old old guy. He really only needs this one election next year. And you've got to assume they'll give him that one.

Shawarma
29th April 09, 11:01 AM
Isn't this a great big kick in the balls to all the REPUBLICANS who voted for his non-Democrat ass? God, I hate this kind of party bouncing.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th April 09, 11:20 AM
Remember though. This is the senate and he's an old old guy. He really only needs this one election next year. And you've got to assume they'll give him that one.

It will all depend on how much his opponent/opponents are able to castigate his party switching for his own benefit vs. how much his oarty shifting was in-line for his constituents.

If he able to bring home the pork for his state, he should emerge unscathed. However, since he *IS* and old guy and now can be viewed as damaged goods, it might harm him.

As goes Obama, will go Spectre from this point on.

Lohff
29th April 09, 11:27 AM
Specter was going to lose in the primaries as a Republican. He was down 20% in the polls against his would-be rival. This is 100% a calculated move to save his cushy seat in Washington, and anyone attributing it to something resembling integrity needs to go scrub off their fucking Kool-aid moustache.
I agree, but he was forced to make the move to save his own skin when the increasingly rabid bible thumping extreme right of the republican party wanted his ass out of office. He's been a moderate republican for a while, and his vote to support the bail out by Obama, (Which was a bad vote but not relevant to the discussion here,) was the last straw for much of the republican constituency. The problem is not just his. If the GOP wants to recapture much of its old power, it needs to stop being so goddamned fundamentalist. Rush Limbaugh is the face of the fucking party for chrissakes.

Phrost
29th April 09, 07:52 PM
They need to dump the Reagan doctrine of pursuing the religious right and scoop up all the Ron Paul libertarians instead.

Zendetta
29th April 09, 08:15 PM
Specter was going to lose in the primaries as a Republican. He was down 20% in the polls against his would-be rival. This is 100% a calculated move to save his cushy seat in Washington, and anyone attributing it to something resembling integrity needs to go scrub off their fucking Kool-aid moustache.

You've worked pretty hard on other threads to lay out a moral philosophy based on Self Interest, so I can't really see what you are upset about.


They need to dump the Reagan doctrine of pursuing the religious right and scoop up all the Ron Paul libertarians instead.

That would be cool (except that I have the same anti-GOP sentiment that you have about the Dems) but its about as likely as the dems dumping the Academic Socialists and the Welfare Lobby.

I think that if Libertarian ideas are going to make it into the mainstream, past the two-headed cerebus gatekeeper of the two major parties, it will be thru moderate Voting Blocs that can assemble a coalition and leverage that support for or against a major party candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_block

Interestingly enough, some states don't allow them...

Phrost
29th April 09, 08:21 PM
You've worked pretty hard on other threads to lay out a moral philosophy based on Self Interest, so I can't really see what you are upset about.

I'm not upset, maybe a bit miffed that people are gullible enough to believe that this is anything but a self-serving move.

Lohff
29th April 09, 08:28 PM
They need to dump the Reagan doctrine of pursuing the religious right and scoop up all the Ron Paul libertarians instead.
A move they are definitely not making right now. Srsly, the longer Obama's presidency goes, the more batshit they become.

Phrost
29th April 09, 08:33 PM
It's too bad we couldn't just incorporate "Independent" into a backhanded party.

Lohff
29th April 09, 08:38 PM
The greens and libertarians would kill each other in short order.

HappyOldGuy
29th April 09, 08:59 PM
I'm not upset, maybe a bit miffed that people are gullible enough to believe that this is anything but a self-serving move.

I don't think anyone is thinking that this is anything but a self serving move (at least anyone sane). The debate is more about whether it is also evidence that the Republicans are eating their own young.

Antifa
29th April 09, 10:53 PM
That would be cool (except that I have the same anti-GOP sentiment that you have about the Dems) but its about as likely as the dems dumping the Academic Socialists and the Welfare Lobby.
.


If the dems just dumped the gun control lobby they would be a much stronger party.

Wounded Ronin
29th April 09, 11:47 PM
If the dems just dumped the gun control lobby they would be a much stronger party.

I can't imagine why they still hang onto that. It costs them politically whereas people who hate guns aren't going to flip out and vote republican most likely.

Spade: The Real Snake
29th April 09, 11:54 PM
They need to dump the Reagan doctrine of pursuing the religious right and scoop up all the Ron Paul libertarians instead.

Reagan is the most successful Republican in...well, almost forever.
They cannot help but dig him up and trot him out at every turn, reminding Americans of his glory days.
Paul's stance on the border is in direct contrast to the Republican's desire to become the Latino party of choice and their belief that Latinos = strong religious ties goes in direct contrast to Latino = harsh border policies, despite a minority of Latinos agreeing.

Phrost
30th April 09, 07:37 AM
All the hispanic people I know want to landmine the border and hate Obama.

Spade: The Real Snake
30th April 09, 09:58 AM
All the hispanic people I know want to landmine the border and hate Obama.

I've found here that if they have family still in Mexico, they want an open border.
If they were born or naturalized citizens or were in the military, closed borders.
Nobody wants to touch amnesty with the eleven foot pole, either.

TheLordHumungus
30th April 09, 12:53 PM
Specter was going to lose in the primaries as a Republican. He was down 20% in the polls against his would-be rival. This is 100% a calculated move to save his cushy seat in Washington, and anyone attributing it to something resembling integrity needs to go scrub off their fucking Kool-aid moustache.

Living in PA, I've heard this every time Arlen's come up for reelection. Last time it was Pat Toomey who was leading him in the polls and was gonna take his seat. Then Spectre beat him when the primaries rolled around, just like he's been doing for decades.

I'm not saying there wasn't a chance he'd lose this time, but you can't really assume that was how it'd go down. There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

Zendetta
30th April 09, 12:59 PM
If the dems just dumped the gun control lobby they would be a much stronger party.

That's a great point, actually. I tend to actually like pro-gun, non-pussy dems like red-headed scot-irish army vet boxer Jim Webb. A broad swath of blue-collar america just won't vote for the Pussy Party.

But Dems dumping the gun-phobes is only marginally more likely than the 'Pubs dumping the Bible-Belt Taliban.

Antifa
30th April 09, 01:57 PM
That's a great point, actually. I tend to actually like pro-gun, non-pussy dems like red-headed scot-irish army vet boxer Jim Webb. A broad swath of blue-collar america just won't vote for the Pussy Party.

But Dems dumping the gun-phobes is only marginally more likely than the 'Pubs dumping the Bible-Belt Taliban.

Not really. its the one place they actually dont listen to their triangulators.

A good white paper from the right source would make them start moving that way.

Zendetta
30th April 09, 02:00 PM
Well, its certainly worth a try.

Johnny Cache had a great post recently about how it would be easier to teach liberals to love guns than to teach conservatives to think rationally.

Antifa
30th April 09, 02:03 PM
Well, its certainly worth a try.

Johnny Cache had a great post recently about how it would be easier to teach liberals to love guns than to teach conservatives to think rationally.

It's true. Dont know how many liberals I've taught to shoot. They are all anti-gun and phobic till they pull the trigger on a mosin-nagant. Then it's like who-ho!

HappyOldGuy
30th April 09, 02:07 PM
It's all about the marketing. The key is to make them realize that gun loving is just another lifestyle choice.

Spade: The Real Snake
30th April 09, 02:31 PM
It's all about the marketing. The key is to make them realize that gun loving is just another lifestyle choice.

Or remind them that once the Second Amendment falls, all others are fair game?

Dagon Akujin
30th April 09, 02:45 PM
^^^^^^I prefer the Pink Triangle approach.



Isn't that what it was called or am I getting confused?

Phrost
30th April 09, 02:59 PM
Dems dumping gun control advotards isn't going to happen. They're the party of "Government is here to take care of you", and it's a fundamental part of their ideology that this includes the idea that you shouldn't have to (or be allowed to) be responsible for your own safety and security.

HappyOldGuy
30th April 09, 03:11 PM
Phrost is so cute. I'm gonna keep him on a leesh after he gets out of reeducation camp.

I'm paying extra for housebroken.

Lohff
30th April 09, 03:59 PM
Dems dumping gun control advotards isn't going to happen. They're the party of "Government is here to take care of you", and it's a fundamental part of their ideology that this includes the idea that you shouldn't have to (or be allowed to) be responsible for your own safety and security.
They're a bit more pragmatic than you give them credit for, I think.

Dagon Akujin
30th April 09, 11:53 PM
Pink Pistols! That's what I was thinking.

http://www.gaylive.be/images/foto/pink_pistols.jpg

Antifa
1st May 09, 01:04 PM
Pink Pistols! That's what I was thinking.

http://www.gaylive.be/images/foto/pink_pistols.jpg


http://www.tweedmag.com/MEDIA/NEWS/2004081800260004.jpg

Phrost
1st May 09, 02:28 PM
I fully support Pink Pistols. Hell, we should organize a "Give a Gay a Gun" day.

Ajamil
1st May 09, 02:49 PM
I'll just mention "packing heat" and let everyone come up with their own joke...

Phrost
1st May 09, 03:24 PM
I generally do pack a lot of heat in my pants.

Cullion
2nd May 09, 10:03 AM
That's a great point, actually. I tend to actually like pro-gun, non-pussy dems like red-headed scot-irish army vet boxer Jim Webb.

Jim Webb was an officer in the Marine Corps during Vietnam. And a pretty scholarly one at that. He's written well-received books about US foreign policy in the Pacific, and about the contribution of scots-irish rednecks to US history (he proudly calls himself a redneck and wants to take the term back) and he speaks Vietnamese.

He also turned up to the Senate every day wearing his son's old combat boots whilst his son was in Iraq and basically told Bush to go fuck himself when Bush asked him how his son was doing. He's sort of like Sun Wukong with a better suit who's decided that instead of being ashamed of being a redneck, he's going to try and be a leader and make being a redneck something to be proud of.

Zendetta
3rd May 09, 12:06 PM
Yep.

He is a bit of a hero to an alienated southern boy like me who loves our country but can't stand its bullshit. I also fully support his brand of non-loser Redneck Pride - Rednecks made America happen.

You've made the point that the salt of the earth still carries the Flame of the West in a way that the urbane elites do not.

While I generally agree wholeheartedly, Rural America underwent a major brain-drain after world war 2 when the GI bill gave every country boy with enough smarts to be an engineer a chance to go to school, move to the city, and become urban bourgoisie.

I really feel a great need for leaders like Webb who can span the "Red State/Blue State" divide. I'm frustrated with a culture split down the middle into two camps - one of which ignores Reason, while the other shuns Self Reliance.

TheLordHumungus
4th May 09, 01:29 AM
Dems dumping gun control advotards isn't going to happen. They're the party of "Government is here to take care of you", and it's a fundamental part of their ideology that this includes the idea that you shouldn't have to (or be allowed to) be responsible for your own safety and security.


Oh, it's the leftists who lionize the police as heroes we can't do without? I must've gotten that confused.

bobyclumsyninja
7th May 09, 05:17 AM
If the dems just dumped the gun control lobby they would be a much stronger party.

If they dumped the 'gun control lobby' as you put it, that's really taking money from the NRA, and not forgoing lobby money on guns. The gun control lobby is a social movement...the NRA is a business movement. Hunters/sportsmen/women are the wedge that lets them keep the gun money flowing...in bad ways...in addition to legitimate needs.

As someone who lives across from a murder scene, down the street from several others, and who lives in a country with 10,000+ gun deaths a year, I'd like to say I feel some gun ownership/possession controls are needed. This isn't the wild west any more, and people's tempers + pride + guns = deaths, and not always those carrying. Bystanders pay the price just as much. That, and stealing legitimate weaponry to use in crime is prevalent.

What works in the country, won't work in the city, or automatically in the burbs...it's just very complicated. Structurally laws should take into account more than guns yes or no. The vast oversimplification of gun ownership issues adds to the problem.

damn it's early in the day for this kind of rant, I'll stop.

bobyclumsyninja
7th May 09, 05:26 AM
Uh, before I'm mad flamed...I should say, I've shot buck and slugs at the churt pit, and some things, and have close friends who are avid hunters/sportsmen......"anti-gun" is a vast oversimplification of most people's legitimate concerns.

Densely populated areas don't respond well to a preponderance of guns....and it shouldn't be that easy to buy serious weaponry anonymously. It's not like the government will go through the list of gun owners, and send the feds in to arrest all the millions. The sons and daughters of gun owners proudly serve this country in all levels of gov. daily. Who are they gonna send??? the Russians?

EDIT: Sorry to shit on the thread, Specter/re? going to the Dems just makes sense for him, the dems, and his moderate constituents (most voting Americans are moderate). He's in a position to know, the republican strategy involves denying Obama/dems ANY achievements whatsoever. Being a part of that, won't endear him to PA voters who, like the entire nation, are suffering right now.

It's good for everyone but the Republicans, and fuck them anyway...they gutted this country, made it the laughing stock of the world...not just the rich bits...the entire planet. Let's hope more leave the party, to be independents, dems, greens, anything but the "big fundie-bigot tent-midlifecrisis" party.

TheLordHumungus
7th May 09, 12:19 PM
It's not like the government will go through the list of gun owners, and send the feds in to arrest all the millions. The sons and daughters of gun owners proudly serve this country in all levels of gov. daily. Who are they gonna send??? the Russians?

You can always pay half the poor to kill the other half. Look at the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_Longshore_Strike). I'll bet most all of those police and national guard members had working class families. It sure didn't stop them from intimidating and brutalizing workers when they were told to.

Phrost
7th May 09, 12:40 PM
Oh, it's the leftists who lionize the police as heroes we can't do without? I must've gotten that confused.

No, it's the leftists that want to dramatically expand government so that it can take care of us from the cradle to the grave in the name of "fairness", who then need to turn around and disarm the population while militarizing government forces in order to ensure everyone stays in-line.

TheLordHumungus
7th May 09, 12:52 PM
Instead we should arm everyone and give the government sweeping authoritarian powers to protect the homeland from enemies both foreign and domestic? Was it the left that passed the patriot act?

I think you're mistaking leftists with some democrats. Doing that is like confusing libertarians with neocons like in the Bush administration.

Sun Wukong
7th May 09, 04:37 PM
Dems dumping gun control advotards isn't going to happen. They're the party of "Government is here to take care of you", and it's a fundamental part of their ideology that this includes the idea that you shouldn't have to (or be allowed to) be responsible for your own safety and security.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

bobyclumsyninja
8th May 09, 04:06 PM
You can always pay half the poor to kill the other half. Look at the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_Longshore_Strike). I'll bet most all of those police and national guard members had working class families. It sure didn't stop them from intimidating and brutalizing workers when they were told to.

They were paid to.....but strikebusting doesn't equal a nationwide night of the long knives. I think we can safely say that bringing in Pinkertons, Cops, Nat Gd. or some similar entity, into a specific area, in the thirties, isn't a logistical feat even worth measuring against confiscating all the guns in the country in today's America.

They're so far apart, that we might be discussing a Plato vs GWB "brain-off" or
Bubby Brister vs Joe Montana
Boston Red Sox vs Chicken Foot Creek High School softball
Stephen Hawking vs L Ron Hubbard
Chopin vs Ashley Simpson
Fedor vs Rudy Abel

A real point of contention seems to be: should individuals have the right to purchase firearms anonymously? This yes guns, no guns mess is a red herring, and distracts from the nuanced reality, that authorities (*gasp* evil wRdz) struggle to navigate.

In a rural setting, guns can be the difference, because of response time...I understand this...and it's important. First day of buck season was less attended than senior skip day in Al, when I was there. People luv some guns.

Boston is one city that certainly does NOT need any more guns. Shot in the back of the head, or through a car window, or just a missed shot for someone else, happens too much here, and everywhere. There's no standoff at twenty paces...

I'm sitting 50 feet from a lady who's 4 year old was shot last year..someone missed someone. I'm sitting next to a young lady who's had to go to too many funerals as a kid...for bystanders as much as participants. I'm only 150 feet from where an 18 year old was shot in the back of the head, in broad daylight a couple of months back.

Last I heard, the murder UNsolved rate in the bean was about 70%. Most of those weren't shootouts. It's not so simple here, or anywhere, that people should just be getting mad guns, and for an abundance of them to be around, in every setting.

That's why the Dems keep on with at least some "gun control", it's because they're not fucking stupid. They represent most of the urban areas in the entire US...kid's (or anyone) dying from gun violence is why it's important. People I know are shot, and thus...my horribly loooooong rant. Srykthxbye

bobyclumsyninja
8th May 09, 04:20 PM
No, it's the leftists that want to dramatically expand government so that it can take care of us from the cradle to the grave in the name of "fairness", who then need to turn around and disarm the population while militarizing government forces in order to ensure everyone stays in-line.

It's cheaper to take care of your populace. This country spends so much more on healthcare per person, and ranks waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list, at or near the bottom of all industrialized nations. Life expectancy? infant mortality? it aint pretty. It's in the entire nation's interest to have universal healthcare. Don't you want your kids cradle-to-the-grave to be longer?

The reason this country is the only rich one to not have it, isn't because of sheer awesomeness, or inherent brilliance. It's because there's a concerted effort by business interests to kill such ideas/laws. There's more money here, and thus, more influence and lobying. Same for guns, "church" issues etc. It's all paid for.....

It's not about "fairness", it's about intelligent governance. The nation needs a government that does more than war and roads...even if certain individuals in the US don't think so, or don't need it personally, at that moment in their life.

Spade: The Real Snake
8th May 09, 07:21 PM
I am sure the drug companies would love charging the US less and passing along the "savings" to the more impoverished countries currently benefiting from our shouldering the burden.

TheLordHumungus
9th May 09, 01:09 AM
They were paid to.....but strikebusting doesn't equal a nationwide night of the long knives. I think we can safely say that bringing in Pinkertons, Cops, Nat Gd. or some similar entity, into a specific area, in the thirties, isn't a logistical feat even worth measuring against confiscating all the guns in the country in today's America.

They're so far apart, that we might be discussing a Plato vs GWB "brain-off" or
Bubby Brister vs Joe Montana
Boston Red Sox vs Chicken Foot Creek High School softball
Stephen Hawking vs L Ron Hubbard
Chopin vs Ashley Simpson
Fedor vs Rudy Abel

A real point of contention seems to be: should individuals have the right to purchase firearms anonymously? This yes guns, no guns mess is a red herring, and distracts from the nuanced reality, that authorities (*gasp* evil wRdz) struggle to navigate.

In a rural setting, guns can be the difference, because of response time...I understand this...and it's important. First day of buck season was less attended than senior skip day in Al, when I was there. People luv some guns.

Boston is one city that certainly does NOT need any more guns. Shot in the back of the head, or through a car window, or just a missed shot for someone else, happens too much here, and everywhere. There's no standoff at twenty paces...

I'm sitting 50 feet from a lady who's 4 year old was shot last year..someone missed someone. I'm sitting next to a young lady who's had to go to too many funerals as a kid...for bystanders as much as participants. I'm only 150 feet from where an 18 year old was shot in the back of the head, in broad daylight a couple of months back.

Last I heard, the murder UNsolved rate in the bean was about 70%. Most of those weren't shootouts. It's not so simple here, or anywhere, that people should just be getting mad guns, and for an abundance of them to be around, in every setting.

That's why the Dems keep on with at least some "gun control", it's because they're not fucking stupid. They represent most of the urban areas in the entire US...kid's (or anyone) dying from gun violence is why it's important. People I know are shot, and thus...my horribly loooooong rant. Srykthxbye

I wanna believe that you're right, but I've found that those who're paid to enforce laws usually do as they're ordered.

Antifa
9th May 09, 02:41 PM
No, it's the leftists that want to dramatically expand government so that it can take care of us from the cradle to the grave in the name of "fairness", who then need to turn around and disarm the population while militarizing government forces in order to ensure everyone stays in-line.

please replace the word leftist with the word liberal.

thanks.

bobyclumsyninja
9th May 09, 09:16 PM
I am sure the drug companies would love charging the US less and passing along the "savings" to the more impoverished countries currently benefiting from our shouldering the burden.

Everyone shoulders the burden. Much of the research is govt. funded, many of the drugs are 2nd use, (what are originally the side effects, become the prescription, and the original use becomes a side-effect)

Do you remember the flap (in certain circles) when Brazil just plain stated they would bootleg a course of generic aids drugs? The pharmos pay good money to have their quasi public funded drugs protected for their profit.

Should I bring up the stipulation that prevents collective bargaining for drug discounts in the huge drug law that they passed a few years back? Does anyone else recall the tales of bribes, strong-arming, and other tactics that got that bill passed as it was? It's all paid for.

The vast sums of money spent to keep politicians on the 'right side' of the public/private healthcare debate is obscene. It's not just obscene, it's dangerous, and costs millions of lives around the world, every year.

If you haven't worked in healthcare, you might not know, but ALL drug reps are gorgeous women, and very very occasionally gorgeous men (probably have a 'ghey' patrol to get in there). This is almost without exception. It's sad to see the middle aged men fall about themselves to entertain, and please them. There's no "Death of a Salesman" type old guys selling this. It's all hot, and funky for the old men's enjoyment, and more importantly, manipulation.

They know how to get their products prescribed. Why do you think they run ads all day long, that don't even tell you what a drug is for, and then they just say at the end "ask your doctor if happylifex is right for you?" and fade to black??? It's long been worked out...and paid for.

The people prescribing are paid for. 2 drug conventions have boycotted Mass, this last week, because of a new law prohibiting valuable gifts to doctors and co.
It's all paid for, and when it can't be, they find other ways. It'll kick in here soon enough, whatever the laws become...Boston, Mass, has the heaviest medical facility concentration in the world.

I'm in a position to know. materials managers, pharmacy heads, purchasing managers, plant ops managers, doctors, CNO's, are all in for 'consulting fees'.

Imagine you can go to a two hour 'discussion and review' and you'll get a check for 150-250 dollars shortly thereafter. You're there to 'review' a product, and are under no obligation to then buy/prescribe it, but of course, this same company does lots of these...why would anyone give enough of a shit, to stir the waters?

Free mouse pads, free high-end pens, Notepads, Breakfast, 'lunches', there are so many angles, that unless you've seen the rhythm of hospital life, and how the drug co's keep everyone happy to see them, and hear from them...it doesn't seem plausible. How can grown folk be so easily manipulated???? people are fucking sheep.

D cup w/ a short skirt = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

bobyclumsyninja
9th May 09, 09:42 PM
I wanna believe that you're right, but I've found that those who're paid to enforce laws usually do as they're ordered.

It's in the government's interest to have the populace armed. This is a relatively stable form of society (peaceful power-turnovers etc). Invasion from without, or within would be virtually impossible in any conventional sense (drones anyone?) because of the massive abundance of firearms, and firearm familiarity withing the population, across the entire nation. I don't think anyone sane, is recommending
take them all, in government.

To me, it seems the same lines of thought that convince people the US, or any nation could invade the entire world....perpetuate the idea that the govt. could confiscate every weapon, or take over every inch with martial law....

It only works until enough people at once say "no". Stability trumps ideology, and no one sane is trying to delve into that shitstorm. Focus of power (I can't remember the term) is why Taiwan isn't recognized, and why no one's trying to take the guns.

Spade: The Real Snake
10th May 09, 11:05 AM
Everyone shoulders the burden. Much of the research is govt. funded, many of the drugs are 2nd use, (what are originally the side effects, become the prescription, and the original use becomes a side-effect)
Everyone shoulders the burden NOW? No, but everyone *would* shoulder the burden then, possibly. However, what manner of financial incentives would there be for drug companies to develop new products.


Do you remember the flap (in certain circles) when Brazil just plain stated they would bootleg a course of generic aids drugs? The pharmos pay good money to have their quasi public funded drugs protected for their profit.

Should I bring up the stipulation that prevents collective bargaining for drug discounts in the huge drug law that they passed a few years back? Does anyone else recall the tales of bribes, strong-arming, and other tactics that got that bill passed as it was? It's all paid for.

As it is with every other lobby.


The vast sums of money spent to keep politicians on the 'right side' of the public/private healthcare debate is obscene. It's not just obscene, it's dangerous, and costs millions of lives around the world, every year.

I agree. I think the average person in Africa or South America shouldn't have to pay pennies for what I pay dollars for. They should pay more so I can pay less.


If you haven't worked in healthcare, you might not know, but ALL drug reps are gorgeous women, and very very occasionally gorgeous men (probably have a 'ghey' patrol to get in there). This is almost without exception. It's sad to see the middle aged men fall about themselves to entertain, and please them. There's no "Death of a Salesman" type old guys selling this. It's all hot, and funky for the old men's enjoyment, and more importantly, manipulation.
I have worked health care and deal with physicians and their staff on a daily basis.
The reason drug reps are the way they are is because they are generally just out of school with some manner of PR degree and don't mind running all over the country kissing doctor ass for a low commission.
I have seen, firsthand, physicians tell drug company reps they won't speak with them at the office, if they wish to speak with them, let them know what time the dinner reservation is or what the tee-time is.

But again, how else do these new drugs get developed? This isn't the 1940s where inventive altruism reigns supreme. If there isn't a profit, there isn't a product. And we, in the US are paying more so other can pay less.


They know how to get their products prescribed. Why do you think they run ads all day long, that don't even tell you what a drug is for, and then they just say at the end "ask your doctor if happylifex is right for you?" and fade to black??? It's long been worked out...and paid for.

They get their products prescribed by giving "free" samples to the doctor, so the doctor will give them to the patients and get them accustomed to taking them.
The "free" samples are built into the aggregate cost of the prescribed, paid-for drugs

The people prescribing are paid for. 2 drug conventions have boycotted Mass, this last week, because of a new law prohibiting valuable gifts to doctors and co.
It's all paid for, and when it can't be, they find other ways. It'll kick in here soon enough, whatever the laws become...Boston, Mass, has the heaviest medical facility concentration in the world
In some manner this will help and in other manners, it will hurt. There are some patients who rely on the "free" samples, again, which are paid for by each and every person filling the prescription.


I'm in a position to know. materials managers, pharmacy heads, purchasing managers, plant ops managers, doctors, CNO's, are all in for 'consulting fees'.

Imagine you can go to a two hour 'discussion and review' and you'll get a check for 150-250 dollars shortly thereafter. You're there to 'review' a product, and are under no obligation to then buy/prescribe it, but of course, this same company does lots of these...why would anyone give enough of a shit, to stir the waters?

Free mouse pads, free high-end pens, Notepads, Breakfast, 'lunches', there are so many angles, that unless you've seen the rhythm of hospital life, and how the drug co's keep everyone happy to see them, and hear from them...it doesn't seem plausible. How can grown folk be so easily manipulated???? people are fucking sheep.

Are you against "promo" items everywhere? Or just in this instance?


D cup w/ a short skirt = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Like this is a bad thing.

Sun Wukong
10th May 09, 07:31 PM
No, it's the leftists that want to dramatically expand government so that it can take care of us from the cradle to the grave in the name of "fairness", who then need to turn around and disarm the population while militarizing government forces in order to ensure everyone stays in-line.

???

The LEFTIES want to militarize government forces? So, it was the LEFTIES that brought you the DHS? It was the lefties that put delivered the J. Edgar Hoover FBI brand to the US? It was the LEFTIES that put together the Patriot Act?

Do you attribute every social ill to gun control?

Sun Wukong
10th May 09, 07:33 PM
please replace the word leftist with the word liberal.

thanks.


I don't think that "liberal" is an accurate political descriptor any more.

bobyclumsyninja
11th May 09, 03:01 AM
now this is long, and I'm sorry...but you made a shitton of good points.


Everyone shoulders the burden NOW? No, but everyone *would* shoulder the burden then, possibly. However, what manner of financial incentives would there be for drug companies to develop new products. They already get money to do so, and obscene profits versus excellent profits isn't that much of a rock and a hard place. There's already opportunity for profit. What we in the states pay waaaaaaaaay too much for, the rest of the world simply pays waay too much for.



As it is with every other lobby.
Some lobbies disproportionately affect quality of life in society. When they rig the drug laws, when they screw vets, when wars are engineered, when it's death for people on the other end of it...the gov. has a vested interest in controlling it tightly. Sadly the politicians have a financial interest in perpetuating the whole scam.




I agree. I think the average person in Africa or South America shouldn't have to pay pennies for what I pay dollars for. They should pay more so I can pay less. If you check, you'll find the average person in south Africa has no opportunity to get their drugs for pennies. The trickle of aid going to the continent (a continent ravaged by western colonialism) is a drop in the bucket. Courses of drugs cost far too much around the globe, they just cost even more here.



The reason drug reps are the way they are is because... they are generally just out of school with some manner of PR degree exactly. Gorgeous professionally trained what? essentially promotional models. I've talked to some, it's not a mistake. These aren't drug experts going around. That can't be good for health...forget profit for a minute.



If there isn't a profit, there isn't a product. And we, in the US are paying more so other can pay less. no, and no. There's money to be made without extortion of the helpless. The question on the minds of many is...unrestrained profit...at the expense of millions of lives annually, is that the best way?


They get their products prescribed by giving "free" samples to the doctor, so the doctor will give them to the patients and get them accustomed to taking them.
The "free" samples are built into the aggregate cost of the prescribed, paid-for drugs sometimes this is the case. It's not, as a rule, the structure of all such sales. Often the 'sample' is enough for only a very limited use, or simply enough to pass along to the CNO and medical review board, for approval, and purchasing signoff bollocks.

Consulting fees, free food, coffee, hot reps, paid travel, paid for politicians, fact finding vacations, skewered laws, immense legal departments, drug-rebrand/reuse etc, vaguely troubling ads coupled to bribes on the front end,
There are so many angles...and all the while the media pound 'generic drugs are unsafe' directly into the public consciousness from the lobby, straight to the people.


The rest of the world thinks we're mad. They're right in the sense that Americans, in addition to being spirited in good ways, tend to protect some of the people screwing them, so they won't have to admit having made a huge error in judgement, in the past.



Are you against "promo" items everywhere? Or just in this instance?
When it's used to detrimentally affect health policy, or the stability of a nation,it's a horrifically bad idea.

Like it is for almost anything else, it's just good business. but business shouldn't trump health. Profit isn't more important than the elderly, the infirm, and the young. Forget healthy adults for a moment....who's got the right to extort from the most helpless?

40 million uninsured is a disgrace in the richest country in the world. The unnecessary disease, and fatalities around the globe, as a direct result of pricing, are unimaginably disgusting, and defy even the most twisted mind's eye.


....arlen specter may well become nixon's china trip in Obama's healthcare fight...a giant wtf moment from an old toolbag trying to stay in power. It's hard to tell...the republicans are imploding...and all things are fluid.

Antifa
11th May 09, 07:10 AM
I don't think that "liberal" is an accurate political descriptor any more.

if I had to do something where I rated the political spectrum in one dimension (which is not a useful model) it would look like this

<anarchist> <trot> <stalinist> <social democrat> <progressive> <liberal> <cold war democrat> <joe liberman> <neo-con><willam f buckley jr><j edgar hoover><adolf hitler>

Spade: The Real Snake
11th May 09, 10:50 AM
They already get money to do so, and obscene profits versus excellent profits isn't that much of a rock and a hard place. There's already opportunity for profit. What we in the states pay waaaaaaaaay too much for, the rest of the world simply pays waay too much for.
Herein lies the problem:

We have several manners of "socialized" medicine in the states:
Federal: Medicare, Medicade and VA

Then each state has low-income or indigent health care

Then you have any number of privatized medical insurance carriers.

So everyone isn't paying the same for the same drug.



Some lobbies disproportionately affect quality of life in society. When they rig the drug laws, when they screw vets, when wars are engineered, when it's death for people on the other end of it...the gov. has a vested interest in controlling it tightly. Sadly the politicians have a financial interest in perpetuating the whole scam.
The Government only gives as much of a shit as the next campaign contribution or income dividend check.

And how did drug companies "engineer a war" I guess I missed that episode of 60 Minutes.



If you check, you'll find the average person in south Africa has no opportunity to get their drugs for pennies. The trickle of aid going to the continent (a continent ravaged by western colonialism) is a drop in the bucket. Courses of drugs cost far too much around the globe, they just cost even more here.

I will plead ignorance on South Africa in specific, however having read some small amount, it seems like there is free public health care, which is stated to be overused and under funded, a growing privatized health care for more affluent folks and health care provided within the mining industry.

What would be your suggestion for improving the overused and underfunded health care system?


exactly. Gorgeous professionally trained what? essentially promotional models. I've talked to some, it's not a mistake. These aren't drug experts going around. That can't be good for health...forget profit for a minute.

They are reps. They try to get the meds from trained professionals to trained professionals. They serve their purpose, like a car salesman.


no, and no. There's money to be made without extortion of the helpless. The question on the minds of many is...unrestrained profit...at the expense of millions of lives annually, is that the best way?
What is a fair profit factoring in all the R&D costs for all the failed formulas it took to get to the formula which worked?

And do you agree with Americans paying to subsidize lesser fortunate countries?


sometimes this is the case. It's not, as a rule, the structure of all such sales. Often the 'sample' is enough for only a very limited use, or simply enough to pass along to the CNO and medical review board, for approval, and purchasing signoff bollocks.
They have a two-fold purpose:

The Pharm Company's INTENDED purpose...to get you using their med

Some Physician's pupose....giving them away to people whom they know can't afford to fill the $4 prescription at Wal-Mart.


Consulting fees, free food, coffee, hot reps, paid travel, paid for politicians, fact finding vacations, skewered laws, immense legal departments, drug-rebrand/reuse etc, vaguely troubling ads coupled to bribes on the front end,
There are so many angles...and all the while the media pound 'generic drugs are unsafe' directly into the public consciousness from the lobby, straight to the people.

These costs are at least equal to the amount of R&D which goes into failed drugs made by the same companies.

Target, Wal-Mart and K-Mart are actively counteracting this by offering generic drugs for $4-5. For all the "Wal-Mart is bad for communities because....." this is an area I think they are being underappreciated for.




The rest of the world thinks we're mad. They're right in the sense that Americans, in addition to being spirited in good ways, tend to protect some of the people screwing them, so they won't have to admit having made a huge error in judgement, in the past.

The trade off is to have income tax ratios same as the rest of the world. It is a double edged sword. We don't have FEDERALIZED health care for EVERYONE however we also don't pay a 50% income tax cross the board.




40 million uninsured is a disgrace in the richest country in the world. The unnecessary disease, and fatalities around the globe, as a direct result of pricing, are unimaginably disgusting, and defy even the most twisted mind's eye.

Again, there are mechanisms from state to state which allow for medical care.
It isn't nationalized, but localized, however the concept of "uninsured" doesn't mean "uncovered".



....arlen specter may well become nixon's china trip in Obama's healthcare fight...a giant wtf moment from an old toolbag trying to stay in power. It's hard to tell...the republicans are imploding...and all things are fluid.
I just shudder to see the freight charge.

bobyclumsyninja
11th May 09, 10:55 AM
And how did drug companies "engineer a war" I guess I missed that episode of 60 Minutes.


I meant lobbies, in general. Some things shouldn't be for sale.

Spade: The Real Snake
11th May 09, 11:52 AM
I meant lobbies, in general. Some things shouldn't be for sale.
ah.
very different then.

The industry in which I work has lobbyists. Paid for by donations to a PAC. I haven't ever spoken with them and thus far haven't really been interested in the specific causes they are lobbying for, so I haven't made any donations.

However in the case of which YOU are speaking of, the "wolves are within the walls."

The lobbyists aren't the concern, it is the elected officials with clear financial gains.

Dagon Akujin
11th May 09, 08:18 PM
I know a girl who wanted to be a drug rep. She was cute, perky, nice tits (an occasional herp on her lip). She ended up working in a doctor's office and dating a drug rep instead (just really wasn't smart enough).

April had told me that the entire office got all of its lunches paid for twice a week. And sometimes more as a surprise. And sometimes birthday cakes were included. She got engaged to one of the reps, who drove a BMW and was not at all a low-paid worker. The idea, afaik, was that the drug company needed to make their reps look rich, because it's a lot easier to trust a guy driving you to the golfcourse in his convertable than it is to trust the guy picking you up a $5 Hot-N-Ready pizza in a rusty station-wagon.

Obviously, her fiance got paid to look cute and flirt with all the office ladies. I wonder if he'll keep his job after he contracts the herp.

:\*

bobyclumsyninja
12th May 09, 07:44 AM
I know a girl who wanted to be a drug rep. She was cute, perky, nice tits (an occasional herp on her lip). She ended up working in a doctor's office and dating a drug rep instead (just really wasn't smart enough).

April had told me that the entire office got all of its lunches paid for twice a week. And sometimes more as a surprise. And sometimes birthday cakes were included. She got engaged to one of the reps, who drove a BMW and was not at all a low-paid worker. The idea, afaik, was that the drug company needed to make their reps look rich, because it's a lot easier to trust a guy driving you to the golfcourse in his convertable than it is to trust the guy picking you up a $5 Hot-N-Ready pizza in a rusty station-wagon.

Obviously, her fiance got paid to look cute and flirt with all the office ladies. I wonder if he'll keep his job after he contracts the herp.

:\*

lolz

*sings* I remember the foooooood, and hooooooooooot women reeeeps~~~~

It's all such a scam, but in healthcare, sadly most of the people are burned out, and one fight w/ mgt from leaving for a better package (especially true in for-profit hospitals). Many people only stay where they are, because it's too much trouble to start at a new facility. Getting a free meal, and a break from looking at the ugly mugs that you stare at day in and day out, becomes a big deal. All the free merch is nice for them too. It gets taken home, it's not to use at work, everyone knows that. How many mouse pads are you gonna have for one mouse (there's a cheesy song in there somewhere)?