Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

[Onyx]

The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hope

Basically making it illegal to legally finance campaigns, through violation of the first amendment on free speech?

Doesn't matter. The lobbyists will continue to illegally finance campaigns, and sway positions with the incentive of more money.

You are trying to fix a machine that never worked in the first place.

 

[Conservative65]

Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit from one's own efforts.

The PROBLEM comes when those that have the means and access to the elected criminals in government game the system. People like Trump.

Senator's daughter who raised price of EpiPen got $19 million salary, perks in 2015

It's time to investigate something real, something that harms the people; don't expect Ryan or McConnell to give a damn:

"Congress won't be here for much of the summer of 2016, according to new legislative calendars released Tuesday by House and Senate leaders.

"The House is set to adjourn on July 15 and not return until Sept. 6, according to the calendar. The House will then be in session until Sept. 30, and adjourn until Nov. 14, after the elections."

Congress plans huge break during summer 2016





Read more: Congress plans huge break during summer 2016
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

You left out that she is the daughter of a DEMOCRAT Senator and the company, while she was CEO, made a sizable donation to the Clinton Foundation.

So much for an investigation.

 

[Dana7360]

The regs need to protect the inventor AND the consumer. That's who I think US Patent Law ought to protect, but if one looks into the law there are hundreds of regulations and rules amended and repealed. There is no way to research who benefits and who loses; in the current case the answer is clear.

I think Hillary will solve the problem. Mylan’s contribution to the Clinton Foundation should give her some leverage. LOL

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray over rapid price increases for the EpiPen, a life-saving injection for people who are having severe allergic reactions.

Mrs. Clinton called the recent price hikes of the EpiPen “outrageous, and just the latest example of a company taking advantage of its consumers.” The EpiPen, made by Mylan NV, contains an injectable form of epinephrine that can be jabbed into the thigh to open airways of people who are having what is called anaphylactic shock.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had no comment on the price increase. But a spokesman for his campaign says Mrs. Clinton isn’t doing enough to show her opposition. He noted that Mylan has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and said that “if Hillary Clinton is as outraged as she claims” then she should direct the foundation to return “every penny” it has received."

Hillary Clinton Calls for Mylan to Lower EpiPen Price Amid Outcry

So Hillary speaks out against it... Trump doesn't say a word... And trumps campaigns only comment is that Hillary isn't doing enough?? Anybody see the irony in that?

Trump has no power to do anything about it. Hillary is trying to defuse it because of the pay to play donation.

Haha, it always amuses me to hear he mindless drones try and use the latest talking points... Ok, so they donated to the foundation there's pay.... How did they play? What did they get in return?? Don't even think about saying access

They raised the price 500% and the government didn't even notice it or do anything about it.
I almost forget, fuck you!

Another lie from you.

The government most certainly noticed and are trying to do something about it.

EpiPen's steady price increases masked until deductibles rose

If you read that article you will see a bipartisan group of senators are trying to change laws to stop this from happening again. One of them is republican Charles Grassley. To be fair, the rest of the senators who are listed as to be trying to do something about this are democrats but there is one republican who agrees with them. If the bill can get past the republican filibuster and House the bills will become law.

It's all up to the republicans, they control both chambers of the congress so they decide what laws are passed. Do they want to do anything to prevent this from happening again?

They have the opportunity to do so but because it repeals some republican laws that caused this to happen, I highly doubt it. Plus they're in the pocket of the drug companies so we will just have to see what they will do. It won't surprise me if the republicans kill the 4 bills in that article.

 

[Slade3200]

Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better safeguard system than the threat of getting fired or possible going to jail.

Lets not forget about Thalidomide and other similar drugs: Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thalidomide became an over-the-counter drug in West Germany on October 1, 1957. Shortly after the drug was sold in West Germany, between 5,000 and 7,000 infants were born with phocomelia (malformation of the limbs). Only 40% of these children survived.[4]Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. Those subjected to thalidomide while in the womb experienced limb deficiencies in a way that the long limbs either were not developed or presented themselves as stumps. Other effects included deformed eyes and hearts, deformed alimentary and urinary tracts, blindness and deafness.[5] The negative effects of thalidomide led to the development of more structured drug regulations and control over drug use and development.[6]

If someone that needs an EpiPen can't get one, it isn't the CEO's fault. It's yours. What you're voting for is government regulation on an issue where you said it shouldn't happen.

What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote me

"Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better

Like with any business where is a CEO a decision maker. For the school you had the principle. With either situation you aren't always going to get your way. With government we at least have the ability to elect new representatives if we do not like the decisions of the leader. Why do you make it a liberal thing? That has nothing to do with it.

I didn't make a Liberal thing. The principal was a Liberal. She made it that way by being one.

It's not about getting my way. It's about doing what's right in that situation. When, in a school of 500, 5 are the cause of such a drastic decision, it's not right to punish the other 495.

Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.

I didn't decide. The numbers did. Are you going to say that 495 should do without because of 5? Just in case you can't do the math, that's 1%. What they did was take the easy way out and punish 99%.

You imagine? You'd be wrong. That would be just another example of you making a determination thinking you know more about what went on than those of us addressing the dumb bitch.

The school board isn't going to replace a principal over this issue. They don't replace the bad ones over inability to do the job.

You are talking about a non essential commodity that has the potential to kill children in an environment that they are mandated to attend for 5 days a week... Airlines don't stock or serve peanuts on flights when 1 person aboard has a peanut allergy... just just serve other items. Thats fine with me... Do you bitch and moan about that too?

I'm talking about more Liberal bullshit taking the easy way out by punishing 495 in favor of 5 rather than finding ways to deal with it and still stay safe.

Why should 99 passengers have to do without because 1 random person could be affected.

It's the Liberal way. If we don't like something, we'll ban it .

You just sound stupid and phony now. Conservatives would say that an airline has every right to do what they want with the food service on their planes. If they don't want to risk a passenger dying in flight do to a peanut allergy then they can not serve peanuts. Who are you to say otherwise? Protest if you want, take another airline, that's fine, but most common sense people understand the reasoning.

 

[Slade3200]

Thats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.

The government is the worst form of oversight. It is biased, and it only enforces selectively biased opinions.

You cannot fix what is inherently wrong with the system. Corruption was inevitable. It has plagued government since the foundation of governments.

The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hope

You mean by the small percentage that actually vote and even much smaller percentage that have a clue as to why they vote for a certain person?

Recent primary elections where I live, some for offices on the national level, specifically the House of Representatives and Senate, had a 15% voter turnout. Runoffs occurred in some statewide and local offices two week later with a whopping 5 - 6% turnout. That's really being elected by the people.

100% should have the ability to vote if they don't do it then that's their call.

 

[Slade3200]

The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hope

Basically making it illegal to legally finance campaigns, through violation of the first amendment on free speech?

Doesn't matter. The lobbyists will continue to illegally finance campaigns, and sway positions with the incentive of more money.

You are trying to fix a machine that never worked in the first place.

True,but it is our machine so we gotta do the best we can with it

 

[Onyx]

True,but it is our machine so we gotta do the best we can with it

That is a lame argument.

Pretty complacent too.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone that needs an EpiPen can't get one, it isn't the CEO's fault. It's yours. What you're voting for is government regulation on an issue where you said it shouldn't happen.

What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote me

"Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better

I didn't make a Liberal thing. The principal was a Liberal. She made it that way by being one.

It's not about getting my way. It's about doing what's right in that situation. When, in a school of 500, 5 are the cause of such a drastic decision, it's not right to punish the other 495.

Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.

I didn't decide. The numbers did. Are you going to say that 495 should do without because of 5? Just in case you can't do the math, that's 1%. What they did was take the easy way out and punish 99%.

You imagine? You'd be wrong. That would be just another example of you making a determination thinking you know more about what went on than those of us addressing the dumb bitch.

The school board isn't going to replace a principal over this issue. They don't replace the bad ones over inability to do the job.

You are talking about a non essential commodity that has the potential to kill children in an environment that they are mandated to attend for 5 days a week... Airlines don't stock or serve peanuts on flights when 1 person aboard has a peanut allergy... just just serve other items. Thats fine with me... Do you bitch and moan about that too?

I'm talking about more Liberal bullshit taking the easy way out by punishing 495 in favor of 5 rather than finding ways to deal with it and still stay safe.

Why should 99 passengers have to do without because 1 random person could be affected.

It's the Liberal way. If we don't like something, we'll ban it .

You just sound stupid and phony now. Conservatives would say that an airline has every right to do what they want with the food service on their planes. If they don't want to risk a passenger dying in flight do to a peanut allergy then they can not serve peanuts. Who are you to say otherwise? Protest if you want, take another airline, that's fine, but most common sense people understand the reasoning.

So now you're defining common sense? Common sense says 99 shouldn't do without because 1 MIGHT be affected.

 

[Conservative65]

Thats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.

The government is the worst form of oversight. It is biased, and it only enforces selectively biased opinions.

You cannot fix what is inherently wrong with the system. Corruption was inevitable. It has plagued government since the foundation of governments.

The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hope

You mean by the small percentage that actually vote and even much smaller percentage that have a clue as to why they vote for a certain person?

Recent primary elections where I live, some for offices on the national level, specifically the House of Representatives and Senate, had a 15% voter turnout. Runoffs occurred in some statewide and local offices two week later with a whopping 5 - 6% turnout. That's really being elected by the people.

100% should have the ability to vote if they don't do it then that's their call.

When such a low percentage of people vote, it definitely refutes your claim that "our officials are elected by the people".

 

[Uncensored2008]

So Hillary speaks out against it... Trump doesn't say a word... And trumps campaigns only comment is that Hillary isn't doing enough?? Anybody see the irony in that?

Hillary is taking fucking bribes from them, Moron.

You can't be this stupid, it isn't possible...

 

[Conservative65]

True,but it is our machine so we gotta do the best we can with it

That is a lame argument.

Pretty complacent too.

Slade seems to think that less than 1 in 5 voting means a candidate was elected by "the people".

His argument is definitely complacent. It's on the level of pissing into the wind then thinking you were rained on.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

I thought you "commie under every bed" types had all died off. Apparently there are a few left.

I live in a country where our government does what the people want or we destroy the ruling party, similar to what you're doing to Republicans now. But we don't have the level of outright lying to the electorate that you have. We also don't have lobbying to the extent Americans do or fund raising to the same extent as you.

I've known a few communists. Unrealistic crackpots. Just as batty as you right wing nuts. But right wingers live in a parallel universe where those who are marginalized and systemically held back are asking for too much when they want good schools for their kids, safe neighbourhoods to live in, and a chance to live their lives with some sense of safety and security that children in the suburbs take for granted.

It's good that Republican voters wrested control of the party away from the elite, but sadly it was the racist wing that did it. You might want to rethink that scorched earth who fucking needs the [name of minority group here]. If enough minorities hate you and women think you're scum, how do you expect to get elected?

With each failure to capture the White House, you a$$hats have become more threatening in both your rhetoric and your actions. Trump is already making excuses for his losses. Claiming his loss isn't legitimate. What a lying piece of shit.

Under the bed? You twits are out in the open now, and have a party.

You know, the Khmer Rouge democrats have had the White House a total of two terms. Not exactly the thousand year reich you want to crow about,

Trump has been quiet for a week, and his numbers are rebounding. IF he can keep his mouth shut until November, he'll win - or more accurately that corrupt pile of shit Hillary will lose.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you think the regulations are in place to protect the company or the consumer?

The regs need to protect the inventor AND the consumer. That's who I think US Patent Law ought to protect, but if one looks into the law there are hundreds of regulations and rules amended and repealed. There is no way to research who benefits and who loses; in the current case the answer is clear.

I think Hillary will solve the problem. Mylan’s contribution to the Clinton Foundation should give her some leverage. LOL

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray over rapid price increases for the EpiPen, a life-saving injection for people who are having severe allergic reactions.

Mrs. Clinton called the recent price hikes of the EpiPen “outrageous, and just the latest example of a company taking advantage of its consumers.” The EpiPen, made by Mylan NV, contains an injectable form of epinephrine that can be jabbed into the thigh to open airways of people who are having what is called anaphylactic shock.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had no comment on the price increase. But a spokesman for his campaign says Mrs. Clinton isn’t doing enough to show her opposition. He noted that Mylan has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and said that “if Hillary Clinton is as outraged as she claims” then she should direct the foundation to return “every penny” it has received."

Hillary Clinton Calls for Mylan to Lower EpiPen Price Amid Outcry

So Hillary speaks out against it... Trump doesn't say a word... And trumps campaigns only comment is that Hillary isn't doing enough?? Anybody see the irony in that?

Oh, you don't know that Mylan, while under the current CEO Heather Dresch, donated a large sum of money to the Clinton Foundation?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well part of the problem is people like you depend on the government from womb to tomb! You depend on a cop on every corner. There is never enough rules and regulations for people that don't have any sense of personal responsibility. The concept of the golden rule is not restricted to theological discussions but people like you
should encourage more personal responsibility then MORE government responsibility. Again there is no way short of an wireless implant that shocks the individual that at any time any where if someone breaks a law or regulation a mild shock is administered. That's why responsible people don't need that implant because we are taught
social and personal responsibility.

Nah, that ain't Harry.

Harry is a gubmint worker, but he earns his own bread at the Post Office.

 

[Dana7360]

I offered a suggestion on how to solve the problem. You said there are times when the government should intervene and seem to believe when it's related to health reasons, it's justified.

Don't think the one about peanut butter hasn't been done at least on a local level. Where my daughter went to preschool, there were kids that were allergic to peanut butter. Rather than dealing with it on a case by case basis, the school, which is an arm of a governmental body, decided to tell everyone they couldn't bring ANY food that had peanut butter in it including PBJ sandwiches, peanut butter/cheese crackers, etc. NOTHING.

If you object to your school banning peanut butter then you can rally up the parents to protest that decision. Get enough voices then you have the ability to change the policy. But make a valid argument and gain support. Ranting about big government or liberal overreach isn't going to cut it.

There was plenty of rallying and support to change it. The principal's decision to ignore it was much like that of most Liberals. The wants of the very few outweigh those of the vast majority.

When it's government overreach, what should you address, the color of the paint in the room?

Like with any business where is a CEO a decision maker. For the school you had the principle. With either situation you aren't always going to get your way. With government we at least have the ability to elect new representatives if we do not like the decisions of the leader. Why do you make it a liberal thing? That has nothing to do with it.

I didn't make a Liberal thing. The principal was a Liberal. She made it that way by being one.

It's not about getting my way. It's about doing what's right in that situation. When, in a school of 500, 5 are the cause of such a drastic decision, it's not right to punish the other 495.

Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.

I'm sorry but maybe I'm prejudice.

I completely understand the need to not allow peanuts or any peanut product in a public school. Some children are so sensitive to it that even the dust from peanuts in the air will send them into anaphylaxis which will kill them without an epipen. That child didn't ask for the allergy. They were born that way. They don't deserve to be ostracized or discriminated because of an allergy. No child should ever fear going to school because they might die from peanuts or peanut products.

Children can bring any sort of sandwich to school they want. PB&J isn't the only type of sandwich a child can eat. I know when I sent a lunch to school with my child I never put any sort of peanut product in it. Ever. My child doesn't have those allergies but I know we are all different and others do. I don't want to find out that a child died because of a sandwich I made.

I have the same problem only with penicillin and any mold that has certain components of penicillin. Which molds with those components are naturally in nature so I can just be walking down the street in the fall or winter and go into anaphylaxis because there's mold in the air. The anaphylaxis is nearly immediate and will kill me without an epipen.

I have to ask certain questions before I go into someone's home or car. If they kept there car outside in our rain, I'm not getting in that car. If they have carpet in their home and it's more than a couple years old, I'm not going in that house.

I didn't ask for this allergy. One of my cousins has the same allergy only not as severe as I have it.

You're arguing with someone who either doesn't understand how lethal peanuts can be to others or they're just too selfish and self centered to care.

 

[healthmyths]

Do you think the regulations are in place to protect the company or the consumer?

The regs need to protect the inventor AND the consumer. That's who I think US Patent Law ought to protect, but if one looks into the law there are hundreds of regulations and rules amended and repealed. There is no way to research who benefits and who loses; in the current case the answer is clear.

I think Hillary will solve the problem. Mylan’s contribution to the Clinton Foundation should give her some leverage. LOL

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray over rapid price increases for the EpiPen, a life-saving injection for people who are having severe allergic reactions.

Mrs. Clinton called the recent price hikes of the EpiPen “outrageous, and just the latest example of a company taking advantage of its consumers.” The EpiPen, made by Mylan NV, contains an injectable form of epinephrine that can be jabbed into the thigh to open airways of people who are having what is called anaphylactic shock.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had no comment on the price increase. But a spokesman for his campaign says Mrs. Clinton isn’t doing enough to show her opposition. He noted that Mylan has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and said that “if Hillary Clinton is as outraged as she claims” then she should direct the foundation to return “every penny” it has received."

Hillary Clinton Calls for Mylan to Lower EpiPen Price Amid Outcry

So Hillary speaks out against it... Trump doesn't say a word... And trumps campaigns only comment is that Hillary isn't doing enough?? Anybody see the irony in that?

Oh, you don't know that Mylan, while under the current CEO Heather Dresch, donated a large sum of money to the Clinton Foundation?

Her dad is Senator Joe Minchin Democrat and former governor of West Virginia...
Again the pious Democrats phonies!

 

[Conservative65]

If you object to your school banning peanut butter then you can rally up the parents to protest that decision. Get enough voices then you have the ability to change the policy. But make a valid argument and gain support. Ranting about big government or liberal overreach isn't going to cut it.

There was plenty of rallying and support to change it. The principal's decision to ignore it was much like that of most Liberals. The wants of the very few outweigh those of the vast majority.

When it's government overreach, what should you address, the color of the paint in the room?

Like with any business where is a CEO a decision maker. For the school you had the principle. With either situation you aren't always going to get your way. With government we at least have the ability to elect new representatives if we do not like the decisions of the leader. Why do you make it a liberal thing? That has nothing to do with it.

I didn't make a Liberal thing. The principal was a Liberal. She made it that way by being one.

It's not about getting my way. It's about doing what's right in that situation. When, in a school of 500, 5 are the cause of such a drastic decision, it's not right to punish the other 495.

Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.

I'm sorry but maybe I'm prejudice.

I completely understand the need to not allow peanuts or any peanut product in a public school. Some children are so sensitive to it that even the dust from peanuts in the air will send them into anaphylaxis which will kill them without an epipen. That child didn't ask for the allergy. They were born that way. They don't deserve to be ostracized or discriminated because of an allergy. No child should ever fear going to school because they might die from peanuts or peanut products.

Children can bring any sort of sandwich to school they want. PB&J isn't the only type of sandwich a child can eat. I know when I sent a lunch to school with my child I never put any sort of peanut product in it. Ever. My child doesn't have those allergies but I know we are all different and others do. I don't want to find out that a child died because of a sandwich I made.

I have the same problem only with penicillin and any mold that has certain components of penicillin. Which molds with those components are naturally in nature so I can just be walking down the street in the fall or winter and go into anaphylaxis because there's mold in the air. The anaphylaxis is nearly immediate and will kill me without an epipen.

I have to ask certain questions before I go into someone's home or car. If they kept there car outside in our rain, I'm not getting in that car. If they have carpet in their home and it's more than a couple years old, I'm not going in that house.

I didn't ask for this allergy. One of my cousins has the same allergy only not as severe as I have it.

You're arguing with someone who either doesn't understand how lethal peanuts can be to others or they're just too selfish and self centered to care.

So now you dictate what my child should and shouldn't eat because of something they didn't do and weren't born with? While PB&J isn't the only kind of sandwich, it's the one my child like but was told she couldn't eat due to nothing she did.

 

[Slade3200]

True,but it is our machine so we gotta do the best we can with it

That is a lame argument.

Pretty complacent too.

What are you talking about? This is our reality. It is our country and the system that governs it. It is an evolving process and with each election we have the opportunity to institute change, so we voice the changes that we want made.

What's your plan? Anarchy?

 

[Slade3200]

What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote me

"Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better

Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.

I didn't decide. The numbers did. Are you going to say that 495 should do without because of 5? Just in case you can't do the math, that's 1%. What they did was take the easy way out and punish 99%.

You imagine? You'd be wrong. That would be just another example of you making a determination thinking you know more about what went on than those of us addressing the dumb bitch.

The school board isn't going to replace a principal over this issue. They don't replace the bad ones over inability to do the job.

You are talking about a non essential commodity that has the potential to kill children in an environment that they are mandated to attend for 5 days a week... Airlines don't stock or serve peanuts on flights when 1 person aboard has a peanut allergy... just just serve other items. Thats fine with me... Do you bitch and moan about that too?

I'm talking about more Liberal bullshit taking the easy way out by punishing 495 in favor of 5 rather than finding ways to deal with it and still stay safe.

Why should 99 passengers have to do without because 1 random person could be affected.

It's the Liberal way. If we don't like something, we'll ban it .

You just sound stupid and phony now. Conservatives would say that an airline has every right to do what they want with the food service on their planes. If they don't want to risk a passenger dying in flight do to a peanut allergy then they can not serve peanuts. Who are you to say otherwise? Protest if you want, take another airline, that's fine, but most common sense people understand the reasoning.

So now you're defining common sense? Common sense says 99 shouldn't do without because 1 MIGHT be affected.

You're an idiot man, i'm just about done with your BS

 

[Slade3200]

Thats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.

The government is the worst form of oversight. It is biased, and it only enforces selectively biased opinions.

You cannot fix what is inherently wrong with the system. Corruption was inevitable. It has plagued government since the foundation of governments.

The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hope

You mean by the small percentage that actually vote and even much smaller percentage that have a clue as to why they vote for a certain person?

Recent primary elections where I live, some for offices on the national level, specifically the House of Representatives and Senate, had a 15% voter turnout. Runoffs occurred in some statewide and local offices two week later with a whopping 5 - 6% turnout. That's really being elected by the people.

100% should have the ability to vote if they don't do it then that's their call.

When such a low percentage of people vote, it definitely refutes your claim that "our officials are elected by the people".

You're right, the monkeys elect them... you win