Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "John Stossel"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
madwtube
It's a law because of drugs, like Thalidomide, that have caused problems in the the past. That set off a slew of legislation designed to not EVER have that happen again, if possible, and that's just fine, to a certain extent. Also, a drug, that's not approved by the FDA, cannot be used or prescribed by a doctor. If a doctor does do it, that's where the litigation starts. The "right to try" is legislation designed to prohibit lawsuits when a drug, that is in testing phase, is applied in desperate situations. That's all it is. It's not a scam....I'm not even sure what the hell that means. It allows drugs, already in the testing phase, to be used as a last hope, without fear of litigation or indictment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivonned32
Division is good for the politicians who think that way. The ones who want to seize power by using the angry to destroy the things that we cherish. The angry come from every race, gender, sexual preference and religion. You see it in the BLM riots. Just as many whites burning and looting as blacks.
That whites are setting fires, for all kinds of reasons, doesn't take away from the fact that the authorities allow the underbrush to grow, wildly, until a dry summer turns it into a tinderbox. The indigenous people, before Europeans came to the Americas, would burn it off, quite frequently, so the fires were manageable. Now they let everything grow, without management, until, more accurately WHEN, a fire does start, it's a raging fire from hell. Because a fire will start, one way or another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onewildandcrazyguy9213
This is the definition of the word "socialism"
"a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Socialism pertains to the means of production or the acquisition of wealth and how a society engages in that goal. It says the state should be in control of production and decide what the market wants. Capitalism says that production should be in the control of the producers and decided on what the market wants. In other words the freedom of the individual to decide what he wants and the supplier decides on whether he will supply it or not.
A fire department or a public water system is not socialism. It's an expense of living, the exact opposite of production. As a society, we've made a tacit agreement to share in the cost of life's expenses and we call them social programs. Therefore we build roads, schools, police departments, a military and the infrastructure that a community needs and we all chip in to build and maintain it. Without a strong economy, there is no wealth attained by the private citizens and we can't chip in to aid in the cost of expenses. We call that money we chip in "taxes". If no one is producing, there is no money being made and no taxes paid. This is the reason socialism is doomed to failure. In Venezuela, as an example, the nationalised oil industry financed the social programs. Those seeking office would promise the electorate the world because the oil revenue was the cash cow that would financially fulfil all their promises. The oil industry had no money left over for maintenance, research and development, hiring the top people and training. Eventually it had to collapse. It's why the Soviet Union failed and why China changed it's strategy allowing for free enterprise while remaining in control of the larger sectors of business.
1
-
@onewildandcrazyguy9213
Did you not even bother to read the official dictionary definition of socialism I provided? If you did, read it again because it's quite evident that you didn't understand it.
Socialism covers the means of production or the gross national product. Basically what all the produce and investments in a country that gives the country monetary value. It's how rich a nation is. Social security is an expense. It doesn't make the country any richer. It's a social program that costs the nation money but allows for a cohesive and civilised society.
So....NO. Social security is not socialism. It's an expense of running a country and does NOT involve the means of production in any way. Production, in the economic sense, means to produce something of value. You do not produce or manufacture social security. When it is the state or government that controls all or most of production, oil, paper, cars, pencils, toilet paper, potatoes, ladders.....manufactured goods, that's a socialist system.
That's what that definition says. It says nothing about social security, education, highways, the police or all those other government run agencies because the produce nothing. They are an expense of the state and do not incur wealth or value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tucson Jim
"I didn't die from the gash from the chainsaw on my leg. I died of blood poisoning from the wound"
Essentially true but you can't discount the importance of the chainsaw accident. No accident, no blood poisoning and no death. Same as the Covid virus. No virus, no complications and no death. They go hand in hand.
Also, Gelsolin is not a cure or a drug. It is something that they could use to help boost an immune system when a boost would be quite useful. It won't hurt you and it may give you the extra strength to stay alive. Sort of like the research that says chicken soup helps to boost the immune system. Chicken soup isn't a cure but it helps. Gelsolin may not be the cure but it can be part of a regime to recovery since it's already a required protein in your body.
What is wrong with looking into it? I don't get the problem.
Also, I'm defending or condemning the FDA. I'm acknowledging that they exist and why it exists. I'm not saying it's perfect. In fact, I've said that, quite strongly, that it wasn't. The FDA mandate is there for all to see and I've paraphrased that mandate or purpose. Now, we can quibble all day about what's right or wrong about it but the fact that it is there and has a purpose is undeniable. Unless you really want Drug companies to release new drugs, without controls or guidelines, whenever they want without a care for any deadly consequences.
I'm not really sure what the problem is here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1