Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Did you know that about 80 percent of the ingredients in medicines Americans take now come from China and India where visits by FDA inspectors are infrequent and inadequate?

The lucrative U.S. drug industry – coddled with tax credits, free transfer of almost-ready-to-market drugs developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars via the National Institutes of Health – charges Americans the highest prices for drugs in the world and still wants more profits. Drug companies no longer produce many necessary medicines like penicillin in the U.S., preferring to pay slave wages abroad to import drugs back into the U.S.

Absence of patriotism has exposed our country to dependency on foreign suppliers for crucial medicines, and these foreign suppliers may not be so friendly in the future.

Recently, I wrote to the CEOs of the 20 largest U.S. corporations, asking if they would stand up at their annual shareholders’ meetings and on behalf of their U.S. chartered corporation (not on behalf of their boards of directors), and pledge allegiance to the flag ending with those glorious words “with liberty and justice for all.” Nineteen of the CEOs have not yet replied. One, Chevron, declined the pledge request but said their patriotism was demonstrated creating jobs and sparking economic activity in the U.S.

But when corporate lobbyists try to destroy our right of trial by jury for wrongful injuries – misnamed tort reform – when they destroy our freedom of contract – through all that brazenly one-sided fine print – when they corrupt our constitutional elections with money and unaccountable power, when they commercialize our education and patent our genes, and outsource jobs to other countries, the question of arrogantly rejected patriotism better be front-and-center for discussion by the American people.

But when corporate lobbyists try to destroy our right of trial by jury for wrongful injuries

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

JohnStOnge wrote:

But when corporate lobbyists try to destroy our right of trial by jury for wrongful injuries

There is no such right in the Constitution. The right to a trial by a jury has to do with when you are criminally charged.

Here it is (6th Amendment):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

I know you already knew that. But I'm just pointing out that the author inserted the premise of a right that does not exist. Also, I think we all know that the lawsuit situation in the United States has gotten entirely out of hand. How would you like to be a drug company executive having to worry about that. There are commercials on TV all the time by lawyers soliciting business from people to sue drug companies. No matter how good faith you are in developing a drug, there is no way to know whether it will cause unanticipated problems or not until it goes out into broad usage. You have to go through clinical trials to demonstrate "safety and effectiveness," but the number of doses administered during those trials is a small fraction of that which will be administered when the drug goes on the market. There is no WAY to be absolutely assured that something won't happen. And when it does the lawyers are ready to pounce.

So you think drug companies are bad? Try what it would be like without them.

Recently, I wrote to the CEOs of the 20 largest U.S. corporations, asking if they would stand up at their annual shareholders’ meetings and on behalf of their U.S. chartered corporation (not on behalf of their boards of directors), and pledge allegiance to the flag ending with those glorious words “with liberty and justice for all.”

grizzaholic wrote:Hell yeah I am Patriotic!

GannonFan wrote:

Recently, I wrote to the CEOs of the 20 largest U.S. corporations, asking if they would stand up at their annual shareholders’ meetings and on behalf of their U.S. chartered corporation (not on behalf of their boards of directors), and pledge allegiance to the flag ending with those glorious words “with liberty and justice for all.”

Really Kalm, the pledge of allegiance? That's what you're worried about? If they include the part of "under God" will that become the next controversy? Weren't the Japanese being "patriotic" when they protected all those banks and industries, which should've folded, from insolvency and then spend two decades in a quagmire of deflation and near zero growth? But hey, they really loved Japan and were patriotic. Maybe they didn't have a cool and catchy pledge of allegiance, maybe that's what was missing.

JohnStOnge wrote:

But when corporate lobbyists try to destroy our right of trial by jury for wrongful injuries

There is no such right in the Constitution. The right to a trial by a jury has to do with when you are criminally charged.

Here it is (6th Amendment):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

I know you already knew that. But I'm just pointing out that the author inserted the premise of a right that does not exist. Also, I think we all know that the lawsuit situation in the United States has gotten entirely out of hand. How would you like to be a drug company executive having to worry about that. There are commercials on TV all the time by lawyers soliciting business from people to sue drug companies. No matter how good faith you are in developing a drug, there is no way to know whether it will cause unanticipated problems or not until it goes out into broad usage. You have to go through clinical trials to demonstrate "safety and effectiveness," but the number of doses administered during those trials is a small fraction of that which will be administered when the drug goes on the market. There is no WAY to be absolutely assured that something won't happen. And when it does the lawyers are ready to pounce.

So you think drug companies are bad? Try what it would be like without them.