sturg33
I
Which imports should be tarrfied, which should not be?
2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
Which imports should be tarrfied, which should not be?
sturg33
I
Let me play your game and ask you where I criticized Harmeet Dillon for speaking at the convention.
Why are you lying about my criticism?
Amber Rose.l story would be more compelling if she committed to changing her lifestyle thanks to the positive virtues of the conservative party. That ain't what happened
All imports from areas that have articifial price deflation factors destroying global competition.
For starters - You didn't even know it was Dillon who said the prayer (you just saw posts from trash influencers about a 'muslim prayer'). Once you found out it was Dillon you had an 'oh ****' moment and softened. I'm aware what just happened.
You criticized that a 'Muslim Prayer' was uttered and the person who uttered it was Dillon. Ergo - You criticezed Dillon and her speach which means you think it should not have been allowed.
I'm aware you want everyone to live as pure of a life as Sturg. We should all work to be as amazing as you while shunning everyoen that doesn't live up to your great standard!
sturg33
I
Where did I "soften".
I asked you if you enjoyed the Muslim prayer.
You said you don't agree with everything.
Then you realized it was Dillon, and went into turbo defense mode.
My criticism is that the RNC allowed a speaker to do a muslim prayer at its convention. If she insisted on doing so, she should not have been an approved speaker.
And I'm a very flawed human but do my best to practice what I preach. I believe society is rotten and won't be saved until that changes more to traditional family values. Therefor, my politics don't promote and pander to the opposite
sturg33
I
And how does that bolster Americans economically?
sturg33
I
Pandering to Muslims by promoting their religion on the party stage
Turbo defense mode?
You mean tell you it was Dillon who spoke and wondered how this was an example of 'DEI' and attempted to reconcile how you wanted her at the same time to be head of the RNC.
Was this an RNC objective do you think? Or something that Dillon wanted to share.
Damn her for having her own thoughts!!
If you don't know the answer to this there is no point in even discussing it further with you.
1. That's trash. Biopharma takes millions of dollars in government grants and funding while developing these drugs. They also benefit from countless tax breaks. The main reason why they receive these benefits is because the government recognizes the need and goodwill of developing life saving drugs. Using the moral high ground to receive funding and tax breaks and then turning around and making these drugs unaffordable is disingenuous. These aren't treatment drugs or elective drugs. These are drugs patients literally cannot live without. And they are not expensive to make either.
2.The public ABSOLUTELY has a right to the labor of others. That's how we have roads to drive on. Police and firemen to protect us. Electricity. Flood control. We literally cannot function as a society without the labor of others. We do not live in a world of black and white.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
Cmon slow walk it for the low iq
sturg33
I
It's clear to me you are incapable of understanding my criticism.
If RDS got on stage and said the voters made a huge mistake by nominating a liberal, you wouldn't classify that as "having his own thoughts."
Every word spoken at the convention is approved and the party approved a Muslim prayer and union boss lecturing us on the joys of dumb communist trash.
That's all well and good for a party who is explicit about moving left. But since I'm not aligned with that approach, I am criticizing it
This ain't the hill I would die on boss.
sturg33
I
1. Why stop at insulin? Shouldn't we cap the cost of cancer drugs? Diabetes? OBGYN services. HIV/HCV? Etc etc. These are all live saving drugs and services.
I agree the biopharma gets subsidies, but I don't think they should. Bio pharm spends billions on R&D. 85% of drugs fail. When they hit, they need to be able to make profit to give us the next one
2. you're suggesting a backdoor promotion of slavery. Nobody has a right to another person's labor. You must engage in agreed upon exchange of value to obtain it (usually money). Our roads are paid for by our local tax dollars. As are police and firemen and the other utilities you mention. They do not do that work for free. If they weren't paid, they would not do the job. Your suggestion that I have a right to their labor would mean that the government would then have to force them to do the work against their will, absent of a voluntary compensation model that we have today.
sturg33
I
it warms my heart that thethe is in defense mode of muslims now, comparing to his rhetoric of the past
1. Insulin is extremely cheap to make. As low as $2 -$4 per vial to produce. The original inventor of insulin purposely didn't seek a patent because they thought it was unethical for a doctor to make money off a drug that could save lives. But to answer your question, I absolutely think capping the cost of life saving cancer drugs is a good thing. Either make the cost affordable or do not patent your discoveries. You cannot do both ethically. That makes you a monopoly. Bio-tech companies spend wildly, often times worse than the US Government, precisely because they know they receive government funding for development of these drugs. Reign in the frivolous spending and the cost to develop and produce the drugs become inexplicably cheaper.
2. I am suggesting nothing of the such. The roads we drive on, the police that serve us, all the services provided to us as a society, the costs of those services far outweigh the individual cost we pay in taxes. They are all forms of socialism. Either you are against all forms of socialism or you are FOS.
Last edited: