Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3459

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members


They have the cures for all the diseases you named......but what is making them more money? people being cured or people being sick? how many pills does a HIV-Positive or AIDS patient take a day? many forms of cancer have been cured but not all forms. BP loses oney then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes.  Big Pharma isn't interested in curing anything.  They're interested in making money and the way to do that is to manage illnesses, not cure them.  

 

The NIH, CDC and to some extent, Walter Reed will the be driving forces behind curing folks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What proof do you have of this? You really think "they" have the cure for cancer and have managed to hide it?  We all have the right to believe what we want I guess, but that sounds like conspiracy theory to me.  Especially since American big pharma is not the only one doing research into these diseases.

How about all the vaccines disease and the diseases that have already been cured?  There is more money in managing every illness we have a vaccine for.  Just like vaccines big pharma would make a mint of the cure for cancer. Not that cancer is one disease anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good news for the people of Wisconsin - a Democrat flipped a state senate seat that went 55% for Trump in the last election, one that the talking heads said they wouldn't be able to win. 

 

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/democrat-wins-special-election-in-northwestern-wisconsin/article_ddbdd542-800e-506b-8882-78c9551fc034.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is scary. That in the wrong hands, a set nuclear policy can be re-written to be much more aggressive with a lower set of criteria for an attack.

 

“Almost everything about this radical new policy will blur the line between nuclear and conventional,...will make nuclear war a lot more likely.”

 

Pentagon Suggests Countering Devastating Cyberattacks With Nuclear Arms

 

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I can definitely see that airing the same week as The Love Boat colliding with an iceberg and sinking while crossing the North Atlantic on the Titanic anniversary with a “Who lives and dies?!” Promo next to Mr Belvedere being blackmailed over his wanted fugitive status back in the UK

      Please register in order to view this content

        Agree with you both. I am also going assume that while Hotel may had some big numbers the first 2 seasons BUT the demographics weren’t great. Reason I say this is I distinctly remember my parents watching St Elsewhere and/or The Equalizer after Dynasty.    I still don’t get Hotel’s designation as a primetime soap opera either lol. ABC should have aired Paper Dolls in the 10/9 slot on Wednesdays in the fall of 1984 to give that show some more legs.    Obviously ABC was eyeing a double bill night in the same vein as Dallas & Falcon Crest and that might have worked better than leaving Paper Dolls to the wolves in an untested timeslot.
    • I tend to stay out of EP discussions, simply because I rarely know who EPs when. And they all have their good and bad sides. But how are we supposed to judge JFP on anything other than what we see? I didn't know she was a director or a music director. (and unlike say, Chris Goutman, I never saw her credited as anything other than an EP) Specifically in the matter of casting Crampton, she took credit for it (or at Crampton gave her credit for it, whatever) and it was arguably, one of the worst recasts of the '90's (and either as bad or worse than the actress she fired).  She lost two important actresses in '92 and still decided to kill Maureen.  She had a wildly uneven tenure at GL. It's no wonder she's polarizing. But it kind of proves a point--great soap is always a that rare combination of everything clicking at the same time.  And believe me, if I could bring myself to watch her male successors who were responsible for bringing back Reva and allowing her to eat the show again, or hiring Hunt Block, or being too chicken to stand up to stans who and hamstrung the show with boring couples stuck in the same repetitive stories (Vanessa/Matt, Chelle/Danny or Richard/Cassie, take your pick) not to mention San CristoHELL....I'd be more than happy to roast them on open spits. I guess we end up talking about JFP because she's in a period we can nominally agree was one of the last "best" periods of the show.
    • A degree does not make one an expert at their job, it just shows that you can follow directions from a technical standpoint.  It doesn't mean that they're creative. JFP was all about the look of a show without considering that technical beauty can only carry a show so far if there is nothing interesting to go along with it.  Equality means calling out flaws equally in both genders. 
    • NBC or P&G was even fool enough to take a full page ad for two consecutive weeks in TV Guide promoting this horrible storyline.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • JFP has had more defense for her decades of terrible producing than many male producers ever had.
    • It makes sense that she got a degree in directing. I've always said she should have been a director. I think she works better at the technical aspects of the show. I think her problem is the emotion/heart of a show.  She always guts the heart of the show she's on and she makes decisions that stop longtime viewers from watching a show. I don't think it's sexism to call that out especially as I've said similar things about Conboy. I've called out Rauch for much worse. 
    • "Aunt Blanche" first appears toward the end of this episode, about 57 minutes in.

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • You're probably right. They may have just wanted edits of certain characters. Hopefully the rest is around.
    • Of course!

      Please register in order to view this content

      I'm wondering if there were bits cut from this footage, because to me it seems that may be the case. At 11:23, Laurie tells her psychiatrist that the bar phoned and told her Mark got into a fight and needs to be picked up. It starts to fade to the next scene, you hear some different music begin and get cut off between the static, and where you'd expect to see the aftermath of the fight, we cut back to a later scene of Laurie in bed worrying about what's happening. The credits at the end also show that more than Mark, Laurie and Dr. Northcote should have been in this episode. Another character, Brody, played by Ed Setrakian, is mentioned but not shown. If this is the case, perhaps the original fan who saved this episode has the additional scenes.
    • Anyway… It’s a shame that the video that depicted Leticia’s death was removed from YT.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy