How Many RSFCKers actually believe they contribute
MarxReaganEquallyDumb
contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
job activities to a real contribution to society?
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________
NapalmHeart
"MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:a8teh8x...@recgroups.com...
I keep murders, rapists, thieves, and such in line and inside the fences.
Ken
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
Sure, that's a no-brainer. I make stuff that people buy with real
money that they choose to give me. I don't make my living off of
money taken from people at the point of a gun.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
mianderson
wrote:
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
unquestionably.
>
> Cheers.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
wrote:
Absolutely. My job matters greatly - and if I do it well, everybody
benefits - directly and indirectly. Ag is still very much of an
economic backbone.
RaginPage
wrote:
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> Cheers.
>
I expect MOST people on here have jobs that are a real contribution to
society. The premise that many do not, is predicated on a philosophy
that is misguided and ignorant.
Brent
the_andr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
I run a clothing store for crossdressers.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
yabbut MY contributions are more worthier than yers, gubbermintboy
JGibson
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
Yes, actually. I may not affect things that do directly to the marketplace
because I tend to work farther back on the supply chain. I also tend to
work less on product development and more on solving problems from products
that went into the field poorly. But I was a major contributor in figuring
out why we were making soft rubber that was making the company we sell that
too unable to properly mold their o-rings that they sell to another company
for kidney dialysis machines.
RaginPage
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's a tough argument to make, I'd have to say. There are few
government positions that so directly relate to the economy, and mine
is one of them.
Brent
Emperor Wonko the Sane
"Patents add the fuel of interest to the fire of genius." A. Lincoln
That's the Cliff's Notes version of my contribution.
Doug
GrtArtiste
The job that I've had for more than 10 years is the most non-essential
and most non-contributive to society that I've ever had. None of my
former employers would classify it as real work and certainly would not
pay anything close to what I'm receiving for it. That a job like this
even exists for me is amazing to me. Why do I do it? Well, at the time I
needed a job badly. It turned out that I had sufficient skills to to
satisfy my superiors, the pay and the hours aren't bad even though there
are no benefits at all. Furthermore, I can work from home and am thus
spared from butting heads with co-workers plus I save a lot of $ on gas.
Why is it such a useless job? Because the service we provide to our
clients enables them to maintain a pretense that they really have a
meaningful CUSTOMER SERVICE function for their customers when, in fact,
very few of their customers receive a satisfactory resolution of their
problems. In short, it's all just for show and they are willing to pay
us a princely sum for this service. No...it's not supposed to make
sense. It never has and it never will.
GrtArtiste
J. Hugh Sullivan
<abc...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
>simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
>So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
>Cheers.
Based on the assumption that "someone has to do it" anybody who gets
paid for his labor contributes.
Hugh
Mercellus Bohren
> contributes to the collective.
The collective? I don't give a shit about contributing the collective. I contribute quite a bit to a small segment of the population that needs to know how to work the machines we make.
Thomas R. Kettler
"MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> Cheers.
I go to nuclear power plants to supervise people who put fuel assemblies
into the cavity of a reactor so that people can have electric power
during the higher usage periods of summer and winter (power plants have
outages in spring and fall when usage is lower).
I routinely get requested at the plants that I have been to return.
People give me the higher priority jobs since they have faith in my
abilities.
This is all I'll type on the subject.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
RaginPage
wrote:
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
Who defines what a "real contribution" to society is?
Seriously?
That's probably one of hte most boneheaded questions asked on here
since one person's definition of a contribution is probably different
than another person's.
Brent
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Aug 12, 9:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
><iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 7:53?am, RaginPage <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 12, 2:19?am, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>> > > to mind. ?For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. ?Some will
>> > > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>>
>> > > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>> > > job activities to a real contribution to society?
>>
>> > > Cheers.
>>
>> > I expect MOST people on here have jobs that are a real contribution to
>> > that is misguided and ignorant.
>>
>> > Brent
>>
>> yabbut MY contributions are more worthier than yers, gubbermintboy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> government positions that so directly relate to the economy, and mine
> is one of them.
Heck, the EPA relates to the economy -- in a job-killing kind of way.
--
The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on my
life. ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge of our
attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
RaginPage
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 9:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> ><iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 12, 7:53?am, RaginPage <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 12, 2:19?am, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> >> > > contributes to the collective. ?For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> >> > > to mind. ?For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. ?Some will
> >> > > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> >> > > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> >> > > job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> >> > > Cheers.
>
> >> > I expect MOST people on here have jobs that are a real contribution to
> >> > society. ?The premise that many do not, is predicated on a philosophy
> >> > that is misguided and ignorant.
>
> >> > Brent
>
> >> yabbut MY contributions are more worthier than yers, gubbermintboy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > That's a tough argument to make, I'd have to say. There are few
> > government positions that so directly relate to the economy, and mine
> > is one of them.
>
> Heck, the EPA relates to the economy -- in a job-killing kind of way.
Yes, but that's not where I'm at. We definitely help create jobs.
Brent
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 12, 9:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
>> ><iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Aug 12, 7:53?am, RaginPage <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 12, 2:19?am, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>> >> > > contributes to the collective. ?For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>> >> > > to mind. ?For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. ?Some will
>> >> > > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>>
>> >> > > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>> >> > > job activities to a real contribution to society?
>>
>> >> > > Cheers.
>>
>> >> > I expect MOST people on here have jobs that are a real contribution to
>> >> > society. ?The premise that many do not, is predicated on a philosophy
>> >> > that is misguided and ignorant.
>>
>> >> > Brent
>>
>> >> yabbut MY contributions are more worthier than yers, gubbermintboy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > government positions that so directly relate to the economy, and mine
>> > is one of them.
>>
>> Heck, the EPA relates to the economy -- in a job-killing kind of way.
>
> Yes, but that's not where I'm at. We definitely help create jobs.
What would the money you use be used for otherwise?
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown
RaginPage
My place of employment brings in revenue, it doesn't cost the
taxpayers very much at all.
Unfortunately, people that love to complain about government spending,
simply don't take the time to differentiate the agencies that fund
themselves and then some, versus ones that are a sink on resources.
Brent
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Aug 12, 12:34?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>
>> What would the money you use be used for otherwise?
>>
>
> My place of employment brings in revenue, it doesn't cost the
> taxpayers very much at all.
Revenue for what? Are these services that are available elsewhere?
Are people compelled to buy them?
>
> Unfortunately, people that love to complain about government spending,
> simply don't take the time to differentiate the agencies that fund
> themselves and then some, versus ones that are a sink on resources.
I am not sure we are communicating. What makes it necessary for this
to be a government rather than a private service? I can understand
police, I can understand fire protection. I can understand military.
When it comes to to other things, it is harder for me to understand.
You have things like parks, which people want to buy to be sure. But
are they run most efficiently by the government being on the front
line doing operations? In almost all cases, no.
--
How far can you open your
mind before your brains
fall out?
Cornelius
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:19:22 -0700, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb"
>
> >Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> >contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> >to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> >simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> >So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> >job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> >Cheers.
>
> Based on the assumption that "someone has to do it" anybody who gets
> paid for his labor contributes.
I agree with this. Anyone that earns money and thus presumably pays
taxes, is contributing to the collective.
That said, it's a fucking ridiculous question. I think Jim is a
farmer - no beef with him or farming in general, but who is the judge
that that is contributing any more to society than someone that stacks
the the shit Jim grows onto supermarket shelves? It's all part of
getting the product to the consumer.
--
Cornelius
RaginPage
They aren't available elsewhere and people are not compelled to buy
them.
> > Unfortunately, people that love to complain about government spending,
> > simply don't take the time to differentiate the agencies that fund
> > themselves and then some, versus ones that are a sink on resources.
>
> I am not sure we are communicating. What makes it necessary for this
> to be a government rather than a private service? I can understand
> police, I can understand fire protection. I can understand military.
We are communicating, I simply don't want to be that specific. Your
assumption that virtually nothing outside of those items you mention
could/should be government run and/or that government run things can't
be efficient, is overly simplistic and false.
> When it comes to to other things, it is harder for me to understand.
> You have things like parks, which people want to buy to be sure. But
> are they run most efficiently by the government being on the front
> line doing operations? In almost all cases, no.
If we spent even a little time evaluating the agencies that are well-
run and requiring other agencies that are not to get more streamlined
and to run accordingly, we would have pretty good services for our tax
dollars.
When one side bleats on and on about how every service is necessary,
and the other side bleats on and on about how virtually all government
is waste and inefficient, we really don't accomplish anything.
Bureaucracy is not efficient, even if it is necessary sometimes. So
how do we get that element out of the agencies where it is a
hindrance to the goal of the agency? And why are virtually no
Congressmen or constituents even asking that question?
Bush's answer was to try and outsource everything, which in many cases
was more expensive and more wasteful than doing it in-house. Obama's
answer is to put Harvard PhDs at the head of every agency that have no
idea how to manage people.
We need people to think, and to actually listen and take the advice of
the people that are doing it right.
Brent
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
To the extent that about 1/4 to 1/2 of my time is dedicated to reporting
to various federal agencies, you have a point.
To the extent that most of my time directly supports cancer research,
fuck off.
--Tedward
Dennis J
crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? Maybe it's
scrambled his molecules...
>We need people to think, and to actually listen and take the advice of
>the people that are doing it right.
this 100% true... too bad discourse is reduced to a tweet at best
usually some slogan that stuck to the wall like the jelly nailed to
it.
--
"It’s been so difficult to get out of this recession because of the disequilibrium in the real economy.”" -- Paul Volcker
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Tonawanda Kardex
wrote:
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
Easy -- I'm an educator on multiple levels in multiple states at
multiple institutions.
Pretty soon, there won't be a kid in America I didn't have a hand in
raising.
Duh.
MoParMan
news:a8teh8x...@recgroups.com...
Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
job activities to a real contribution to society?
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________
I fix the computers of the people that take your children away from you when
you can't seem to raise them according to some guidelines, some beaurocrat
made up.
You tell me if I do or not.
---Scott From Hawkins Texas---
If Government Is Big Enough To Give You Everything You Want,
Then It Is Big Enough To Take Everything You Have!!
mianderson
wrote:
> On Aug 11, 11:19 pm, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> > contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> > to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> > job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> Easy -- I'm an educator on multiple levels in multiple states at
> multiple institutions.
ah...the wonderful world of online diploma mills.......
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sometimes in not such good ways (system issues - not person)
At a time when our future affluence depends so heavily on innovation,
we have drifted toward a patent regime that not only fails to fulfil
its justifying function, to incentivise innovation, but actively
impedes innovation. We rarely directly confront the effects of this
immense waste of resources and brainpower and the attendant
retardation of the pace of discovery, but it affect us all the same.
It makes us all poorer and helps keep us stuck in the great
stagnation.
JGibson
> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 12:34?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Aug 12, 12:19?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> >> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > On Aug 12, 9:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
What about the Manhattan project?
xyzzy
wrote:
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> Cheers.
>
Since I'm an Objectivist, I refuse to contribute to society and rfsck
you if you don't like it.
xyzzy
wrote:
> In article <a8teh8xohv....@recgroups.com>,
Dude, I may know when of your co-workers. Are you in Washington State?
Emperor Wonko the Sane
> On Aug 12, 9:43 am, RaginPage <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 9:32 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
I say, as someone who has worked with the patent system for the last twenty-seven years, the Economist is completely full of shit on this one. They should stop listening to idots like Google and Mark Cuban. The loudest squeals are always from the ones doing very little innovating and simply implement other people's ideas without a thought of paying for them.
Doug
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That's defense, and that's crash.
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Emperor Wonko the Sane
I think that would be an Objectionist.
Doug
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That's what we're supposed to be doing now, but who's doing the
evaluating? The people who lose their jobs and/or budgets, that's
who. And what incentive to the have to come up with the cutting
answer? Zippity-doo-dah.
>
> When one side bleats on and on about how every service is necessary,
> and the other side bleats on and on about how virtually all government
> is waste and inefficient, we really don't accomplish anything.
When was the last time a government agency was cut without
privatizing it?
>
> Bureaucracy is not efficient, even if it is necessary sometimes. So
> how do we get that element out of the agencies where it is a
> hindrance to the goal of the agency? And why are virtually no
> Congressmen or constituents even asking that question?
Constituents constantly ask the question. But then when they
organize into the Tea Party, the MSM and unions spend hundreds
of millions of dollars to demonize them and try and marginalize
them.
>
> Bush's answer was to try and outsource everything, which in many cases
> was more expensive and more wasteful than doing it in-house.
Examples? Oh, don't bother. I've seen enough projects that went
down because they were sabatoged by empires that struck back.
> Obama's answer is to put Harvard PhDs at the head of every agency
> that have no idea how to manage people.
>
> We need people to think, and to actually listen and take the advice
> of the people that are doing it right.
And the only way to do it is to privatize it and put a profit
motive on it.
RaginPage
>
> At a time when our future affluence depends so heavily on innovation,
> we have drifted toward a patent regime that not only fails to fulfil
> its justifying function, to incentivise innovation, but actively
> impedes innovation. We rarely directly confront the effects of this
> immense waste of resources and brainpower and the attendant
> retardation of the pace of discovery, but it affect us all the same.
> It makes us all poorer and helps keep us stuck in the great
>
> - Show quoted text -
I want very badly to comment. Maybe someone will do it for me.
Brent
RaginPage
You just can't. How do you privatize the FDA? NIH? You can't treat
everything with a profit motive, if you do, you'll think the
corruption we have now is positively ethical compared to what you'll
have under that scenario.
These ideas are every bit as dangerous as the ones in which the
government should do everything.
Brent
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
>> > assumption that virtually nothing outside of those items you mention
>> > could/should be government run and/or that government run things can't
>> > be efficient, is overly simplistic and false.
>>
>> >> When it comes to to other things, it is harder for me to understand.
>> >> You have things like parks, which people want to buy to be sure. But
>> >> are they run most efficiently by the government being on the front
>> >> line doing operations? In almost all cases, no.
>>
>> > If we spent even a little time evaluating the agencies that are well-
>> > run and requiring other agencies that are not to get more streamlined
>> > and to run accordingly, we would have pretty good services for our tax
>> > dollars.
>>
>> That's what we're supposed to be doing now, but who's doing the
>> evaluating? The people who lose their jobs and/or budgets, that's
>> who. And what incentive to the have to come up with the cutting
>> answer? Zippity-doo-dah.
>>
>>
>>
>> > When one side bleats on and on about how every service is necessary,
>> > and the other side bleats on and on about how virtually all government
>> > is waste and inefficient, we really don't accomplish anything.
>>
>> When was the last time a government agency was cut without
>> privatizing it?
>>
>>
>>
>> > how do we get that element out of the agencies where it ?is a
>> > hindrance to the goal of the agency? ?And why are virtually no
>> > Congressmen or constituents even asking that question?
>>
>> Constituents constantly ask the question. But then when they
>> organize into the Tea Party, the MSM and unions spend hundreds
>> of millions of dollars to demonize them and try and marginalize
>> them.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bush's answer was to try and outsource everything, which in many cases
>> > was more expensive and more wasteful than doing it in-house.
>>
>> Examples? Oh, don't bother. I've seen enough projects that went
>> down because they were sabatoged by empires that struck back.
>>
>> > Obama's answer is to put Harvard PhDs at the head of every agency
>> > that have no idea how to manage people.
>>
>> > We need people to think, and to actually listen and take the advice
>> > of the people that are doing it right.
>>
>> And the only way to do it is to privatize it and put a profit
>> motive on it.
>>
>
> You just can't. How do you privatize the FDA?
Easily. Eliminate a good part of it. Of course, they just went the
other way with the "food safety" bill which loads more regulation on a
food supply that is already the safest in the world.
> NIH? You can't treat everything with a profit motive, if you do,
> you'll think the corruption we have now is positively ethical
> compared to what you'll have under that scenario.
Let's try some of it, and then if there is a problem go back the other
direction.
>
> These ideas are every bit as dangerous as the ones in which the
> government should do everything.
But you aren't going to let the government let go of a thing once
it gets its mitts on it, hmm?
--
"The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell: The
first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing
countries. In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good
about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places
have to starve to death."
-Mark Steyn
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Feel free - it's just one opinion of an obviously complicated issue
Thomas R. Kettler
<5688c0d9-c5e8-453c...@w18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dude, I may know when of your co-workers. Are you in Washington State?
No, I'm from Ohio and have worked at power plants in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, New Jersey and
Illinois.
Tonawanda Kardex
> On Aug 12, 3:22 pm, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 11:19 pm, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> > > contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> > > to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> > > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> > > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> > > job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> > Easy -- I'm an educator on multiple levels in multiple states at
> > multiple institutions.
>
> ah...the wonderful world of online diploma mills.......
No, they fired me, remember?
Try and keep up, non-FB boy.
RaginPage
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I mean I am not allowed to share such on a pubic forum, one way or
the other.
Brent
RaginPage
Good thinking. Let's eliminate the agencies that actually do a decent
job of protecting us.
> > NIH? You can't treat everything with a profit motive, if you do,
> > you'll think the corruption we have now is positively ethical
> > compared to what you'll have under that scenario.
>
> Let's try some of it, and then if there is a problem go back the other
> direction.
We have, over the years, and these are areas that either the private
section doesn't want, or can't do. This isn't one of those things
that we don't know how privatization would work, we actually know that
it wouldn't.
> > These ideas are every bit as dangerous as the ones in which the
> > government should do everything.
>
> But you aren't going to let the government let go of a thing once
> it gets its mitts on it, hmm?
>
Sometimes I think some of you forget most of my posts. In certain
areas privatization is good. Just not where you've mentioned. Again,
it's about being discerning and not just throwing stuff out there
because it sounds good.
Brent
TimV
He has no friends so his facebook account will just be his family.
might as well just text them.
Tom Enright
As long as you take nothing from it, yer golden.
-Tom Enright
Thomas R. Kettler
<de7963a5-7979-4dfc...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
You forget. Mikey Boy got his psycotic degree from a diploma mill.
Consequently, he knows how worthless they are.
Jim Brown
I'd be happy to be FB friends with Mike. His deplorability is vastly
overstated.
Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:24:24 -0700 (PDT)]
: I'd be happy to be FB friends with Mike. His deplorability is vastly
: overstated.
Either you believe he's been lying about pretty much every personal
detail he's ever shared with RSFC or you're not paying attention.
--
Antonio Veranos
<insert witty comment here>
TimV
> [Jim Brown, jimbr...@yahoo.com]
> [Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:24:24 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : I'd be happy to be FB friends with Mike. His deplorability is vastly
> : overstated.
>
> Either you believe he's been lying about pretty much every personal
> detail he's ever shared with RSFC or you're not paying attention.
>
The only way this is possible is if he stole someone else's identity and
managed to keep up the ruse for at least 7 years now - including that
individual's education and current work experience.
T
Thomas R. Kettler
wrote:
I think you mean shirk experience. His work level reminds me of Robert
Nardelli - do nothing yet demand reams of money.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Aug 12, 6:32?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> But you aren't going to let the government let go of a thing once
>> it gets its mitts on it, hmm?
>>
>
> Sometimes I think some of you forget most of my posts. In certain
> areas privatization is good. Just not where you've mentioned. Again,
> it's about being discerning and not just throwing stuff out there
> because it sounds good.
That would all be grand and dandy if the Federal government would do
*any* of it. We have to cut. Everyone has excuses as to why their
particular sacred cow shouldn't be cut. Yours as well as everyone
else's.
When we have cut *anything* then I'll listen about keeping stuff.
Food safety? We already have safe food. When it gets unsafe, then
let's do something more. We didn't need that bill, just as we don't
need Caylees/Megans/Jasons/WhoeverTheFoo's law. We need to repeal some
stuff and remove some stuff before we add more.
Now we have to watch the unions make us hemhorrage billions and
billions more dollars as they refuse to let the dying US Post
Office go.
And then when a real taxpayer's union shows up -- the tea party --
those featherbedding government employees and their MSM partners
try and demonize it as being extremist. Taxpayers deserve a union
too, and they finally have one. Until now, the tax eaters have
reigned supreme.
The usual end to this cycle is the collapse of a civilization.
Unions and populism paying off the masses is the last stage.
We are there now. We can either be the first civilization to
reverse it on our own, or follow Athens, Rome, and the
Ottoman empire into the dustbins of history.
--
Making the simple complex, that is easy -- anyone can do that.
But to make the complex simple, awesomely simple, that is
true creativity. -- Charles Mingus
Dennis J
solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his
brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
>simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
>So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
>Cheers.
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
Currently I help retailers sell their stuff. I try to help keep cash
flowing, but it seems people are holding their cash a little tighter
and staying home. hard to sell to people that aren't there.
--
"It’s been so difficult to get out of this recession because of the disequilibrium in the real economy.”" -- Paul Volcker
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Tonawanda Kardex
wrote:
> In article
> <de7963a5-7979-4dfc-bbc8-7a3ec4370...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 1:50 pm, mianderson <clay...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 12, 3:22 pm, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 11, 11:19 pm, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> > > > > contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> > > > > to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> > > > > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> > > > > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> > > > > job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> > > > Easy -- I'm an educator on multiple levels in multiple states at
> > > > multiple institutions.
>
> > > ah...the wonderful world of online diploma mills.......
>
> > No, they fired me, remember?
>
> > Try and keep up, non-FB boy.
>
> You forget. Mikey Boy got his psycotic degree from a diploma mill.
> Consequently, he knows how worthless they are.
Shit. My bad.
Doug Adell
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> My work fills me with angst, which makes me want to drink. Booze is
> heavily taxed. You should thank me for my significant contribution.
Too bad. If you were on extended unemployment, you could have been
making good use of the stimulus! But turns you're just another one of
those stupid taxpayers, who all good government workers and welfare
recipients righteously detest.
--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>I go to nuclear power plants to supervise people who put fuel assemblies
>into the cavity of a reactor so that people can have electric power
>during the higher usage periods of summer and winter (power plants have
>outages in spring and fall when usage is lower).
>
>I routinely get requested at the plants that I have been to return.
Are you always able to correct the mistakes you made the first time?
>This is all I'll type on the subject.
Me, too.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<scott.hend...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"MarxReaganEquallyDumb" wrote in message
>news:a8teh8x...@recgroups.com...
>
>Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
>simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
>So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
>Cheers.
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>I fix the computers of the people that take your children away from you when
>you can't seem to raise them according to some guidelines, some beaurocrat
>made up.
>
>You tell me if I do or not.
>
>---Scott From Hawkins Texas---
You also keep lakes from becoming overcrowded with fish.
Hugh
MoParMan
news:4e469297...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hugh
Someone has to do it!!
---Scott From Hawkins Texas---
If Government Is Big Enough To Give You Everything You Want,
Then It Is Big Enough To Take Everything You Have!!
JGibson
> On 2011-08-12, JGibson <james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2011 1:24:51 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Aug 12, 12:34?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> >> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Aug 12, 12:19?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> >> >> On 2011-08-12, RaginPage <btpa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 12, 9:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> >> >> >> >> On Aug 12, 7:53?am, RaginPage <btpa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 12, 2:19?am, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> >> >> >> >> > > to mind. ?For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. ?Some will
> >> >> >> >> > > simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> >> >> >> >> > > job activities to a real contribution to society?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > Cheers.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > society. ?The premise that many do not, is predicated on a philosophy
> >> >> >> >> > that is misguided and ignorant.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Brent
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> yabbut MY contributions are more worthier than yers, gubbermintboy- Hide quoted text -
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > That's a tough argument to make, I'd have to say. ?There are few
> >> >> >> > government positions that so directly relate to the economy, and mine
> >> >> >> > is one of them.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Heck, the EPA relates to the economy -- in a job-killing kind of way.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Yes, but that's not where I'm at. ?We definitely help create jobs.
> >> >>
> >> >> What would the money you use be used for otherwise?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > My place of employment brings in revenue, it doesn't cost the
> >> > taxpayers very much at all.
> >>
> >> Revenue for what? Are these services that are available elsewhere?
> >> Are people compelled to buy them?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > simply don't take the time to differentiate the agencies that fund
> >> > themselves and then some, versus ones that are a sink on resources.
> >>
> >> I am not sure we are communicating. What makes it necessary for this
> >> to be a government rather than a private service? I can understand
> >> police, I can understand fire protection. I can understand military.
> >>
> >
>
> That's defense, and that's crash.
Once you open up a gray area like that, it's less cut and dry, though. That takes
R&D without immediate payback. Once you open it up to that, how about bio-
terror defense? And what about research on things expected to be used in
bio-terror attacks?
michael anderson
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
It's still defense.
There are plenty of things I think ought to be paid for by the federal
government. But virtually everyone can agree on some level of
coordinating law enforcement, legislature, judicial, and executive,
and defense/military. Beyond that, every area gets grayer and grayer.
Personally I like national parks. I like real pollution control. (And
that doesn't include "carbon pollution", which isn't.) I like the FAA
and certain functions of the DOT. I like a few federal health
standards -- very few -- mostly related to the FDA and some standards
there.
After that, it should be wide open in my opinion. The more we
eliminate from the rest of that stuff, the better. Anything you can
ax, for whatever reason, should go. You *know* that the government
employees who eat on our tax money are going to go kicking and
screaming all the way -- it won't be easy if we get it done at all. We
already have the next battlefield -- the increasingly superflous US
Post Office.
I don't even blame the workers -- no one wants to lose their job, and
when it's yours you can always come up with tons of reasons why you
are vital. All that means is that some leadership has to be exercised.
It won't be easy to do -- corporations have the profit motive to spur
cuts. What incentive does government have?
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
Dennis J
solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his
brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>"MarxReaganEquallyDumb" wrote in message
>news:a8teh8x...@recgroups.com...
>
>Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
>simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
>So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
>Cheers.
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>I fix the computers of the people that take your children away from you when
>you can't seem to raise them according to some guidelines, some beaurocrat
>made up.
>
>You tell me if I do or not.
makes you part of the problem pla,,, Garbage in garbage out....
Thomas R. Kettler
No. As an example, I made the mistake that you had a clue. I still can't
fix that one.
MoParMan
news:o7nd47hmurbaklob3...@4ax.com...
hey, "MoParMan" <scott.hend...@sbcglobal.net>'s been through
solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his
brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>"MarxReaganEquallyDumb" wrote in message
>news:a8teh8x...@recgroups.com...
>
>Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
>simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
>So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
>Cheers.
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>I fix the computers of the people that take your children away from you
>when
>you can't seem to raise them according to some guidelines, some beaurocrat
>made up.
>
>You tell me if I do or not.
makes you part of the problem pla,,, Garbage in garbage out....
I'll be up there the 8th thru the 12th or 13th. Staying at the Choice Suite
in Lafayette.
Dennis J
cool, next month correct?
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>In article <4e469205...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:48:40 -0400, "Thomas R. Kettler"
>> <tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I go to nuclear power plants to supervise people who put fuel assemblies
>> >into the cavity of a reactor so that people can have electric power
>> >during the higher usage periods of summer and winter (power plants have
>> >outages in spring and fall when usage is lower).
>> >
>> >I routinely get requested at the plants that I have been to return.
>>
>> Are you always able to correct the mistakes you made the first time?
>
>No. As an example, I made the mistake that you had a clue. I still can't
>fix that one.
No need to - I don't need clues, I have all the answers. I'm treading
water waiting for you to catch up.
Hugh
Glen Heiman
"MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> Cheers.
Next time try to think of a meaningful poast?
Heiman
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
emmo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> Cheers.
>
I do, but I cannot divulge what I do.
Kyle T. Jones
> On Aug 12, 2:19 am, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
>> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
>> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
>> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>>
>> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
>> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>
> that is misguided and ignorant.
>
> Brent
>
Where was that premise stated? I think only in your head.
Later, you go on to claim this is simply a bone-headed question, and
then go into great lengths to just barely insinuate you do something
Really Top Secret (like, spy shit or something!)
Hey, someone has to do that stuff - more power to you.
This has been one of my favorite threads. Was flying from Seattle back
to Madison during most of the replies - it's always fun to find a thread
you started with 65+ replies in short order - when you haven't had to
re-reply yourself and egg things on, I mean.
I think the question's worth asking, because it's worth thinking about.
Why so may regulations? Why so much inefficiency? I buy some land on
Lake Michigan - why does the government get to tell me how to build my
house?
How many folks are honestly working a job which has an obvious main
result - to *reduce* efficiency, in terms of accomplishing some set goal
wrt to producing goods and services? Obviously they exist - for
instance, the EPA and the FDA. But, I personally think most of what
they do is a worthwhile reduction of efficiency - and here, we have the
argument revealed. It isn't whether or not folks work toward the
ultimate outcome of *actually* *reducing* our efficiency, in terms of
producing Stuff. That folks and jobs like that exist is a given - it's
an absolute given, see above.
It's just a matter of who and how, and where you approve of those
reductions. People complain about the 17-20% of GDP consumed by
government entities - how about the 33-36% consumed by the financial
sector? Are they worth that? Are they pulling their weight? Is it ok
to give a not-insignificant-percentage of your employees 6- to 7- figure
*bonuses* - not salary, but bonuses - then expect the government - you
and I - to bail you out because you played a @#$%ing con with most of
the money, pushing short-term in-your-pocket considerations over
long-term sustainability?
Yeah. I think all those questions are worth asking. Who's *righteous*
right now? Who's paying it forward - putting in more than they're
pulling out? You'd have a hard-ass time convincing me it's the bankers
and financial "whizzes" of this country.
Anyhow. Ciao.
RaginPage
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> RaginPage wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 2:19 am, "MarxReaganEquallyDumb" <abc0...@webnntp.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Serious question - how many RSFCKers honestly believe their work
> >> contributes to the collective. For some it's tangible - Jim Brown comes
> >> to mind. For a hell of a lot of you, it's pretty intangible. Some will
> >> simply acknowledge that their paper-pushing-positions are meaningless.
>
> >> So, I'm interested, honestly - is it easy for you to map your day-to-day
> >> job activities to a real contribution to society?
>
> >> Cheers.
>
> > I expect MOST people on here have jobs that are a real contribution to
> > society. The premise that many do not, is predicated on a philosophy
> > that is misguided and ignorant.
>
> > Brent
>
> Where was that premise stated? I think only in your head.
So if I ask the question "How many of you on here actually care about
people, and state something you've done that demonstrates that" you
wouldn't think that I was insinuating that many people don't? Really?
> Later, you go on to claim this is simply a bone-headed question, and
> then go into great lengths to just barely insinuate you do something
> Really Top Secret (like, spy shit or something!)
>
> Hey, someone has to do that stuff - more power to you.
I don't do that stuff. Believe me. And what I do is NOT top secret,
but I'm still not really supposed to share it either.
That's government policy, and it really doesn't matter whether you
work for the CIA or TSA or fisheries and wildllife. Public forums
aren't the place to say anything that gives the impression you are
representing the agency you work for.
Period.
> This has been one of my favorite threads. Was flying from Seattle back
> to Madison during most of the replies - it's always fun to find a thread
> you started with 65+ replies in short order - when you haven't had to
> re-reply yourself and egg things on, I mean.
>
> I think the question's worth asking, because it's worth thinking about.
> Why so may regulations? Why so much inefficiency? I buy some land on
> Lake Michigan - why does the government get to tell me how to build my
> house?
>
> How many folks are honestly working a job which has an obvious main
> result - to *reduce* efficiency, in terms of accomplishing some set goal
> wrt to producing goods and services? Obviously they exist - for
> instance, the EPA and the FDA.
Those of you that complain about the FDA, really need to go eat some
mouse droppings in some other countries and enjoy it.
>But, I personally think most of what
> they do is a worthwhile reduction of efficiency - and here, we have the
> argument revealed. It isn't whether or not folks work toward the
> ultimate outcome of *actually* *reducing* our efficiency, in terms of
> producing Stuff. That folks and jobs like that exist is a given - it's
> an absolute given, see above.
>
> It's just a matter of who and how, and where you approve of those
> reductions. People complain about the 17-20% of GDP consumed by
> government entities - how about the 33-36% consumed by the financial
> sector? Are they worth that? Are they pulling their weight? Is it ok
> to give a not-insignificant-percentage of your employees 6- to 7- figure
> *bonuses* - not salary, but bonuses - then expect the government - you
> and I - to bail you out because you played a @#$%ing con with most of
> the money, pushing short-term in-your-pocket considerations over
> long-term sustainability?
>
> Yeah. I think all those questions are worth asking. Who's *righteous*
> right now? Who's paying it forward - putting in more than they're
> pulling out? You'd have a hard-ass time convincing me it's the bankers
> and financial "whizzes" of this country.
That's a bunch of unrelated ambiguous vague notions that aren't really
worth talking about unless you want to get into some real specifics.
Something you don't seem to want to do.
Brent
MoParMan
yes
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
> > You just can't. How do you privatize the FDA?
>
> Easily. Eliminate a good part of it. Of course, they just went the
> other way with the "food safety" bill which loads more regulation on a
> food supply that is already the safest in the world.
<
<Good thinking. Let's eliminate the agencies that actually do a decent
<job of protecting us.
Um...protecting us from new cures as well. The FDA imposes tremendous
burdens on the Duke Cancer Institute. The paperwork alone is stupendous.
To some extent you can argue this is necessary; I can point out situtations
that are stupid.
The FDA is a problem, IMHO. The very fact that terminal patients die in
agony is a moral outrage. The costs of introducing new drugs are putting
new drug makers out of business.
Exposing quack drugs is fine and all, but I reserve the right to take quack
drugs, and I should be allowed to put a bullet in the head of anyone who
tries to stop me.
--Tedward