- Apr 23, 2016
- 35,285
- 50,893
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I tend to think things from 1849 to today change and develop over time
Yes. They do.
Trying to cram Gates in to everything is folly.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I tend to think things from 1849 to today change and develop over time
Yes. They do.
Trying to cram Gates in to everything is folly.
No, because that doesn't inconvenience them so they don't care.
Everything today and related to Covid I will. His influence is all over the patents so why wouldnt i?
Not about convenience or inconvenience, its about choice.
Im mashing the time Pharma became the 1 percent and changed tact to become the 100% profit hedge fund supporting goliath it now has become.
I tend to think things from 1849 to today change and develop over time
You said Clinton created BigPharma. Pfizer has been a multi-billion dollar company for decades, and had been around for over 100 years before Clinton even became President.
BigPharma existed well before Clinton, and neglects that pretty much every single multi-national company is far bigger today than they once were due to the wonders of technology.
Uh huh.
Choices don't occur in a vacuum though.
Mark McGowans entire political career is based on making choices in a vacuum of his choosing.
Read the articles I post please. It explains the Big pharma definition Im discussing. You cant ask me for proof/evidence and refuse to read the articles I post.
Not really a fair or proper way to argue
Which articles? You made the statement in that post I replied to, I wasn't reading the previous pages if they'd been linked there as this thread had jumped about 6 or 7 pages.
Choices do occur in a vacuum. Its why a faceless unelected health advisory board is dictating legislation, thats of course if you believe what Mark says
But they don't.
You're arguing you should be free to make whatever personal choice you like. Those choices don't occur in a vacuum though, which means your choices impact upon others. At what point does your freedom impacting upon someone else mean your freedom should be curtailed?
When we apply water restrictions during a drought do you decide that you should be free to use however much water you like because well, you want to?
How Big Pharma Was Captured by the One Percent
The industry's price-gouging economic model was engineered by Wall Street and its political enablers—and only Washington can fix it.newrepublic.com
Anyway here it is again
Before 1968, inventors had been required to assign any inventions made with NIH funding back over to the federal government. Now, those inventions were being sold to the highest bidder.
Right. So that article doesn't say what you think it says then.
Clinton's responsible for not doing much to stop what was already happening, and allowing them to advertise on TV.
1968 was far more relevant to what it became than Clinton.
Not likely to find the evidence you need
It depends how liberal you want to be with your narrow definition. My choice to drive a car incredibly impacts on others. Should I not have my car license removed irregardless of my behaviour?
You are creating the imaginary line and I am too. I tend to think my line has existed for longer then your newly created one though. Im arguing a status quo, you are arguing a movement of that line based om newly created events. I believe the line should follow the same philosophies of times past, you are saying philosophies need to be adaptable to a new environment
The honest truth is we should follow the same philsophies because unless you are willing to hand in your car keys, your cigarette, your alcohol and your freedom of movement you are creating a line that you yourself cross every day
The laws about funding changed in Clintons era though to open funding up to the extreme levels we see today
Again. You're all over the shop trying to make your personal agenda seem like something in the interests of public good.
In times past we've restricted international movement, and even made plans to restrict movement across state borders.
The last sentence is nonsense.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...K-lockdown-latest-coronavirus-update-video-vnMatt Hancock told Sophy Ridge on Sky News that a double dose of a coronavirus vaccine results in around 97 percent protection against dying from the virus. However, the Health Secretary admitted that the flip-side of that figure meant that there was still a possibility that some could die from the virus. It comes as the Indian variant is causing concern due to how quickly it spreads - but it is not thought to be resistant to current vaccines.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...K-lockdown-latest-coronavirus-update-video-vn
My agenda is the status quo? How is my personal situation being brought in? I am impacted but I am arguing for a return, you are arguing for a alteration. The agenda of similarity isnt a agenda that needs defining like that
Can you alert me to the times past you were forced to wear certain objects, forced to write your name and contact details everywhere you went, fined for re entering the country if breaching certain conditions and I could go on. Cherry picking 1 tiny part of legislation to prove your point is childish
Can you point me to a time you were conscripted to go to war? Needed to ration food?
These things haven't happened in almost anyone's lifetimes. That doesn't mean they can't occur, or shouldn't occur when the need arises.
Do you believe something - anything - should have been changed in response to coronavirus?
Correct, just like the choice to turn a health system into a Covid-only service causes a crisis down the line.Uh huh.
Choices don't occur in a vacuum though.