Women sue Wal-Mart to require them to carry the

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

No, Mickey's wrong.  Nazi Germany's economy was a planned economy.  Corporations were dictated to by the government.  You're confusing the role of the industrialists in the Nazi rise to power in the parlimentary government with the role of the industrialists in the post-parlimentary Nazi dictatorship.  Two different things.

 

Plus...it's very clean and easy to believe that Germany was one great big happy place that got along with everyone else until the Nazis suddenly sprouted from the Bavarian earth.  In reality, a good many of the "collaborative" projects German industry handled "for the Nazis" were initiated before the Nazis came to power - Daimler-Benz's aircraft engine development, for example, or Porsche's development of the Volkswagen (since Volkswagen itself wasn't even a company until after the war).

596380[/snapback]

 

Hey! What are you doing bringing FACTS into the conversation?

 

[Mickey]

This is laughable. The Nazi regime no more allowed free markets than they allowed free press. They TOLD the Krupps and Farbens and Benzes what they wanted...namely cannons, tanks and aircraft, and the companies did what they were told. The businessmen backed Hitler early on because they THOUGHT he was pro-business and anti-communist. But they were in for a rude awakening when they found that Fascism in the Nazi sense was hardly different at a practical economic level than Soviet Communism.

 

Perhaps a deeper read into history with a neutral eye is in order, Mick.

596336[/snapback]

There was a deep bond between those corporations and the Nazi's. The resistance they offered was nil. Many enthusiastically accepted slave laborers by the hundreds if not thousands. Hitler needed them to re-arm and they needed the government contracts. The Nazis dictated a lot of prices but since they were supplying slave laborers, the corporations could afford lower prices and still make very tidy profits.

 

The fact is that many American Corporations were only too happy to do business with the Nazis and did so for quite awhile. Hitler wasn't dictating anything to them, he was just a good customer.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hey! What are you doing bringing FACTS into the conversation?

 

596388[/snapback]

 

Giving my post a second thought...I don't know. It's a waste of time. Guess I'll delete my post.

[Mickey]

 

No, Mickey's wrong.  Nazi Germany's economy was a planned economy.  Corporations were dictated to by the government.  You're confusing the role of the industrialists in the Nazi rise to power in the parlimentary government with the role of the industrialists in the post-parlimentary Nazi dictatorship.  Two different things.

 

Plus...it's very clean and easy to believe that Germany was one great big happy place that got along with everyone else until the Nazis suddenly sprouted from the Bavarian earth.  In reality, a good many of the "collaborative" projects German industry handled "for the Nazis" were initiated before the Nazis came to power - Daimler-Benz's aircraft engine development, for example, or Porsche's development of the Volkswagen (since Volkswagen itself wasn't even a company until after the war).

596380[/snapback]

Sure it was planned, a plan those corporations had little or no objections to. I don't see why there would be any problems with the development of a new engine pre-nazi. Not so Degussa proccessing the gold pried from the teeth of millions of concentration camp victims.

 

By the way, numerous German industrialists were tried for war crimes after the war. Eleven of twelve Krupp directors were convicted and sentenced to prison. Alfried Krupp himself was froced to sell all of his possessions. Here is what he had to say about Krupp and the Nazis:

 

"We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that. ... We Krupps never cared much about [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business."

 

Three officials of Flick KG were also convicted and sentenced in another trial of German industrialists after the war. They used concentration camp inmates and other slave laborers in their factories and mines. They helped found the Nazi friendly "Circle of Friends" in 1932 which became the Circle of Friends of Himmler in 1935.

 

Before we get too far afield, do you agree or disagree that government is far more dangerous when it intervenes on behalf of the largest institutional interests in society than when it intervenes on behaltf of the interests of individuals as against large institutions? That is really the issue in this particular debate.

 

I am for more comfortable with a government that stands up for the little guy than I am with a government that stands up for Wal Mart.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There was a deep bond between those corporations and the Nazi's.  The resistance they offered was nil.  Many enthusiastically accepted slave laborers by the hundreds if not thousands.  Hitler needed them to re-arm and they needed the government contracts.  The Nazis dictated a lot of prices but since they were supplying slave laborers, the corporations could afford lower prices and still make very tidy profits.

 

The fact is that many American Corporations were only too happy to do business with the Nazis and did so for quite awhile.  Hitler wasn't dictating anything to them, he was just a good customer.

596400[/snapback]

 

Not quite yet again, Mickey. The Corporations wanted the business, yes. But the slave labor didn't rally take root until about 1941. Early on, Germans were lumped into proto-unions controlled by the government. So your argument that slave labor made the companies huge profits early in the Nazi regime is incorrect.

 

And YES, Hitler was dictating to the corporations. He told them exactly what to make (or, rather, Speer did) and how much. He directed their research. he controlled every facet of business, technology and research in the Third Reich.

[OGTEleven]

Before we get too far afield, do you agree or disagree that government is far more dangerous when it intervenes on behalf of the largest institutional interests in society than when it intervenes on behaltf of the interests of individuals as against large institutions?  That is really the issue in this particular debate. 

 

I am for more comfortable with a government that stands up for the little guy than I am with a government that stands up for Wal Mart.

596438[/snapback]

There's the problem in a nutshell. Government should be no more inclined to "Stand up for" one group or another. Call it Labor vs. Management, Institutional vs individual or whatever you like. Government should always stand up for the principles upon which it was founded.

 

It stands to reason, given the constant push and pull between labor and management, that proper government action would not always line up with one side or the other. Sometimes it would side with individuals, sometimes with institutions and sometimes (hopefully most) it would stay uninvolved. Institutions, or groups of institutions, are inclined toward corruption. So too are individuals or groups of individuals.

 

"The people's republic's" around the world do not have stellar records when it comes to individuals even though they are staunchly anti-business. Neither group has been served well by these governments that are predicated on standing up for the workers.

 

I'll take our founding priciples and stack them up against any in the world's history. It's when our government strays from them (in favor of either labor or management or a self absorbed power grab) that we get into trouble.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Sure it was planned, a plan those corporations had little or no objections to.  I By the way, numerous German industrialists were tried for war crimes after the war.  Eleven of twelve Krupp directors were convicted and sentenced to prison.  Alfried Krupp himself was froced to sell all of his possessions.  Here is what he had to say about Krupp and the Nazis:

 

"We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that. ... We Krupps never cared much about [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business."

 

And Rear Admiral Karl Doenitz got ten years for "waging aggressive war"...despite numerous affidavits from Allied naval leaders stating point-blank that he did nothing the Allies didn't do themselves. Don't confuse the vengance of the victor with justice.

 

Three officials of Flick KG were also convicted and sentenced in another trial of German industrialists after the war.  They used concentration camp inmates and other slave laborers in their factories and mines.  They helped found the Nazi friendly "Circle of Friends" in 1932 which became the Circle of Friends of Himmler in 1935.

 

And using Flick KG as an example of favorable Nazi policies to industrialists is disingenious at best. Of the two main policies Flick was a beneficiary of - Aryanization of industry and forced labor - one was far less economic than it was racial (and was, at best, neutral to the industrialists...discriminating, as it did, against a certain class of industrialists for racial reasons), and the other was less a favor to industrialists than it was an economic policy brought on by severe manpower shortages (and could be argued as unfriendly to industrialists...the only ones who got rich of forced labor were the SS; the total return on forced labor for the companies employing it was actually rather low). And that doesn't even consider how they were competing against growing state-run industries.

 

Which is not to say they shouldn't have been tried for either (as they were...and largely acquitted - yet you want to argue they were complicit? ) But the economics hardly support an "industrialist friendly" environment to the degree you're pretending.

 

Before we get too far afield, do you agree or disagree that government is far more dangerous when it intervenes on behalf of the largest institutional interests in society than when it intervenes on behaltf of the interests of individuals as against large institutions?  That is really the issue in this particular debate. 

 

I am for more comfortable with a government that stands up for the little guy than I am with a government that stands up for Wal Mart.

596438[/snapback]

 

I'm more comfortable with a government that doesn't stand up for either. The tyrrany of egalitarian individualism can be just as bad as the tyrrany of corporate favoritism. Even worse, sometimes.

 

That view also conveniently ignores that throughout American history, the government has been largely pro-industry...and the benefactors of such - the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds, Morgans, and such - established quite a few of the institutions that today you'd argue should be out of the hands of corporate America.

[Alaska Darin]

And Rear Admiral Karl Doenitz got ten years for "waging aggressive war"...despite numerous affidavits from Allied naval leaders stating point-blank that he did nothing the Allies didn't do themselves.  Don't confuse the vengance of the victor with justice. 

And using Flick KG as an example of favorable Nazi policies to industrialists is disingenious at best.  Of the two main policies Flick was a beneficiary of - Aryanization of industry and forced labor - one was far less economic than it was racial (and was, at best, neutral to the industrialists...discriminating, as it did, against a certain class of industrialists for racial reasons), and the other was less a favor to industrialists than it was an economic policy brought on by severe manpower shortages (and could be argued as unfriendly to industrialists...the only ones who got rich of forced labor were the SS; the total return on forced labor for the companies employing it was actually rather low).  And that doesn't even consider how they were competing against growing state-run industries.

 

Which is not to say they shouldn't have been tried for either (as they were...and largely acquitted - yet you want to argue they were complicit?  )  But the economics hardly support an "industrialist friendly" environment to the degree you're pretending.

I'm more comfortable with a government that doesn't stand up for either.  The tyrrany of egalitarian individualism can be just as bad as the tyrrany of corporate favoritism.  Even worse, sometimes.

 

That view also conveniently ignores that throughout American history, the government has been largely pro-industry...and the benefactors of such - the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds, Morgans, and such - established quite a few of the institutions that today you'd argue should be out of the hands of corporate America. 

596526[/snapback]

Socialism is only cool when it's awarded to the right people.

[Mickey]

Not quite yet again, Mickey. The Corporations wanted the business, yes. But the slave labor didn't rally take root until about 1941. Early on, Germans were lumped into proto-unions controlled by the government. So your argument that slave labor made the companies huge profits early in the Nazi regime is incorrect.

 

And YES, Hitler was dictating to the corporations. He told them exactly what to make (or, rather, Speer did) and how much. He directed their research. he controlled every facet of business, technology and research in the Third Reich.

596441[/snapback]

I think he eve worked in the mail room.

 

German industry enthusiastically and without anyones gun to their heads, bought up Jewish owned factories and equipment at a fraction fo their worth.

 

Careful on the slave labor stuff. The Germans considered non-Aryan civilians working under contracts they signed under threat of being sent to penal camps to be "free" labor. Such labor was available long before war broke out. From 1933 on, Krupp and others were good little nazi industrialists. Were they following orders? To some extent, sure they were. "I was just following orders" is not a defense anyone but a fascist recognizes as valid. Besides, they had lots of choices within the framework of what the Reich wanted built. They chose what to feed or not feed their slave laborers.

 

Do you really equate pharmacy regulations in the US with Hitler and his war criminal industrial sycophants?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you really equate pharmacy regulations in the US with Hitler and his war criminal industrial sycophants?

596837[/snapback]

 

I thought you were doing that.

 

Why exactly are we discussing Nazi economic policy again?

[Mickey]

And Rear Admiral Karl Doenitz got ten years for "waging aggressive war"...despite numerous affidavits from Allied naval leaders stating point-blank that he did nothing the Allies didn't do themselves.  Don't confuse the vengance of the victor with justice.

 

That doesn't mean that Eichmann was innocent nor does it mean that Krupp and other convicted industrialists weren't guilty. Don't confuse an anecdote for truth. Eleven Krupp directors found guilty out of twelve. Is that not enough? Thirteen out of twenty four tried at IG Farbin were convicted. Is that not enough? Is there an acceptable number of war criminals working for these companies before we consider them to have been willing nazis?

 

And using Flick KG as an example of favorable Nazi policies to industrialists is disingenious at best.  Of the two main policies Flick was a beneficiary of - Aryanization of industry and forced labor - one was far less economic than it was racial (and was, at best, neutral to the industrialists...discriminating, as it did, against a certain class of industrialists for racial reasons), and the other was less a favor to industrialists than it was an economic policy brought on by severe manpower shortages (and could be argued as unfriendly to industrialists...the only ones who got rich of forced labor were the SS; the total return on forced labor for the companies employing it was actually rather low).  And that doesn't even consider how they were competing against growing state-run industries.

 

Which is not to say they shouldn't have been tried for either (as they were...and largely acquitted - yet you want to argue they were complicit?  )  But the economics hardly support an "industrialist friendly" environment to the degree you're pretending.

 

Six were tried and three were found guilty. How is that "largely acquitted"?

 

As for how profitable it was for these companies, I note that military spending in Germany in 1932 was 1.9 million marks and by 1939 it was 32.2 million. I'm thinking that maybe steel and armament concerns did quite well during that period, quite well indeed.

 

Flick started donating money to right wing political parties that wanted to install an authoritarian government starting in 1929 and that included the Nazis. Flick maintained that the Jewish companies he acquired after Hitler attained power were obtained by negotiating legitimate business deals. Convincing evidence indicates that his position is untenable. Flick KG did not operate in a vacuum in the 1930s; its executives were not ignorant of the racial persecution that was forcing German Jews to sell their businesses. Between 1937 and 1939, Flick KG energetically involved itself in three Aryanization projects that increased Flick's coal and pig iron supplies, so that his company was less dependent on outside producers (thereby reducing production costs). The Flick group acquired Hochofenwerk Lübeck, a blast furnace operation; the lignite mines Anhaltische Kohlenwerke - Werschen Weissenfelser AG (AKW-WW), owned by the Julius Petschek family; and select lignite mines located in central Germany belonging to the Ignaz Petschek family.

 

Flick acquired those concerns because it improved their bottom line.

 

I'm more comfortable with a government that doesn't stand up for either.  The tyrrany of egalitarian individualism can be just as bad as the tyrrany of corporate favoritism.  Even worse, sometimes.

 

Cry the beloved Wal Mart.

 

That view also conveniently ignores that throughout American history, the government has been largely pro-industry...and the benefactors of such - the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds, Morgans, and such - established quite a few of the institutions that today you'd argue should be out of the hands of corporate America. 

596526[/snapback]

 

I am not "conveniently ignoring" anything, I don't even know what you are talking about in that last paragraph. What institutions are those? Should I be including Ford and General Motors whose subsidiaries were filling defense contracts for Hitler even after 1939 in that list?

 

I am sure that Carnegie and the like have established many a charitable trust over the years but that doesn't erase those aspects of their past of which even they would be ashamed. Hitler was kind to his dog. Maybe that makes him a hero with the ASPCA, on the whole though, I don't think that kindness really gets him off the hook.

 

I don't get the nostalgia for the days of yore where robber barons and trusts made it possible for us all to enjoy 23 hour days, child labor, lungs full of coal dust and a life expectancy hovering near 12. Oh for the good old days.

 

Before we go off on a long discussion of the history of corporations, maybe its too late to stop that, but let me try. The issue here is pharmacy regulations that, long and short of it, don't let a pharmacy decide to refuse to dispense a perfectly legal medicine ordered by a doctor for his or her patient. Agree or disagree and if you disagree, am I a "fascist" for thinking its a good idea? That is how this little adventure started.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading up on the history of Flick AG and the Krupp Werks but I don't think I'm in any danger of Wal Mart Aryanizing condom sales in the northeast any time soon.

[Mickey]

There's the problem in a nutshell.  Government should be no more inclined to "Stand up for" one group or another.  Call it Labor vs. Management, Institutional vs individual or whatever you like.  Government should always stand up for the principles upon which it was founded. 

 

It stands to reason, given the constant push and pull between labor and management, that proper government action would not always line up with one side or the other.  Sometimes it would side with individuals, sometimes with institutions and sometimes (hopefully most) it would stay uninvolved.  Institutions, or groups of institutions, are inclined toward corruption.  So too are individuals or groups of individuals.

 

"The people's republic's" around the world do not have stellar records when it comes to individuals even though they are staunchly anti-business. Neither group has been served well by these governments that are predicated on standing up for the workers. 

 

I'll take our founding priciples and stack them up against any in the world's history.  It's when our government strays from them (in favor of either labor or management or a self absorbed power grab) that we get into trouble.

596462[/snapback]

I am not sure the pharmacy issue has anything to do with labor vs. management. It's sick people who need medicine vs. Wal Mart. In that one I am going with the sick people. I know, I'm just a crazy fascist.

[Mickey]

I thought you were doing that. 

 

Why exactly are we discussing Nazi economic policy again? 

596889[/snapback]

I made a case for why sound economic reasons existed for the pharmacy policies that, in essence, requre pharmacies to dispense medicines. In response, I was called a fascist, advocating state control of all businesses. Somewhere in there I made the point that powerful corporations can exercise undue power over individuals just as much as a government can. From there things just took off.

 

Bottom line, I think pharmacies like Wal Mart should have to dispense medicine that sick people need regardless of whether it is not the most profitable drug around just like hospitals can't refuse to set broken legs because their profit margin is better on liposuctions.

 

This is really politics disguised as business and as usual, it has to do with abortion so everyone is speaking in codes and losing their minds.

[colin]

Your understanding of the exercise of power and the role of government seems to be quite limited.  Even more limited is your inability to understand the difference between selling hoola-hoops and life saving medicines.  Worst of all is your inability to see that there are occasions where protecting individuals, real live people, is more important than protecting large corporations.

 

If hospitals and pharmacies were treated simply as businesses with profit being the only legitimate goal, there are quite a lot of live saving procedures and medicines that would not be available.  Fortunately, the world isn't run by idiots who see fascism in government protecting individuals but not in powerful corporations deciding which people will have access to which medicines regardless of medical need and the opinions of actual doctors.

 

Since government is such a terrible thing when it comes to requiring pharmacies to make drugs available inorder to have a license, I have a sound solution for the poor embattled Board of Directors at Wal Mart.  No federal dollars, none, not medicaid, not medicare, zip for any prescriptions purchased at Wal Mart so that Wal Mart can be entirely free of government "interference".  Those who want to buy their drugs there can do so with their own money and at prices far exceeding what would be otherwise paid at other pharmacies.  Nobody is asking my politics when they take my tax money to pay for those prescriptions

 

You might want to expand your understanding of fascism a little bit.  In Nazi Germany, the government was so pro-business it was hard to tell the two apart.  The government didn't force businesses to do its bidding, the government volunteered to help the businesses do anything they wanted.  There were no better allies to the Nazi's then the largest business interests in Germany, the Wal Marts of their day (Corporations collaborating with the Nazis included Krupp, Daimler Benz, Opel, Mann, Volkswagen, BASF, Degussa, Siemens and IG Fargen to name just a few).  When government intervenes against the interests of individuals, real live people, on behalf of large businesses and to their benefit, that is true fascism.  The result is a combination of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful institutions in society working in concert. Against such an alliance, individual freedom doesn't stand a chance.

 

Government is at its least fascist when it intervenes on behalf of individuals as against powerful institutions be they businesses or some other breed.  Every concern you have raised has been over the much abused "rights" of poor old Wal Mart.  As for people, real live people, the kind with arms and legs and medical problems requiring medicinal treatment, you apparently don't give a rat's a$$. 

An imaginary, inflated threat to Wal Mart's profits have you in conservo-salivating overdrive about fascism but the plight of actual people, doesn't merit so much as a syllable of concern from you.

 

But you aren't a fascist are you?  IG Farben would have loved you.

596313[/snapback]

 

 

well, another swing and another miss, keep trying you'll grow up someday!

 

"You might want to expand your understanding of fascism a little bit."

 

nonsense.

 

i defined fascism above, it is private ownership of capital/business with government fiat dictating its use. this is EXACTLY what drug stocking laws are.

 

while you might equate the nazi regime with fascism in the muddy soup of all things economic in your brain, they aren't the same thing.

 

you see, the same way that socialism is a concept that exists independently of the former soviet government (or even current sweden), fascism is a concept that exists independant of the little talking points you might think of when the name comes up.

 

your whole tirade about nazis was very elightning, but a total non sequitor.

 

if you really think corporations/business = bad and government intevention "for the little guy" = good, then you'll have no doubt already booked your flight to cuba to live in corporation free government intervention rich paradise.

 

when are you off?

[colin]

I made a case for why sound economic reasons existed for the pharmacy policies that, in essence, requre pharmacies to dispense medicines.  In response, I was called a fascist, advocating state control of all businesses.  Somewhere in there I made the point that powerful corporations can exercise undue power over individuals just as much as a government can.  From there things just took off.

 

Bottom line, I think pharmacies like Wal Mart should have to dispense medicine that sick people need regardless of whether it is not the most profitable drug around just like hospitals can't refuse to set broken legs because their profit margin is better on liposuctions. 

 

This is really politics disguised as business and as usual, it has to do with abortion so everyone is speaking in codes and losing their minds.

596913[/snapback]

 

 

now now

 

i didn't say you advocated state control of all bussiness.

 

you advocate facism when it suits your own personal politics.

 

you've said as much with your dismissive remarks about any stakeholders (the management, the board, by extension shareholders and employees on all levels).

[OGTEleven]

I am not sure the pharmacy issue has anything to do with labor vs. management.  It's sick people who need medicine vs. Wal Mart.  In that one I am going with the sick people.  I know, I'm just a crazy fascist.

596910[/snapback]

The post to which I responded was one in which you were arguing about something to do with Nazi Germany. There was no pharmacy issue mentioned even though it may have evolved from a pharmacy issue earlier in the thread. Your comment about inviduals vs. institutions was VERY general without any obvious or implied exceptions.

 

Many of the same types of issues arise in labor vs management threads/discussions/controversies. The analogy should have been obvious. Just in case it wasn't, I spelled it out. If it still isn't, feel free to substitute institutions vs individuals for any reference to management vs labor. You're smart enough to figure that out.

 

Is your "sick people" vs WalMart an attempt to get me to accuse you of calling pregnancy a sickness? If so, consider the bait ignored.

[Mickey]

The post to which I responded was one in which you were arguing about something to do with Nazi Germany.  There was no pharmacy issue mentioned even though it may have evolved from a pharmacy issue earlier in the thread.  Your comment about inviduals vs. institutions was VERY general without any obvious or implied exceptions. 

 

Many of the same types of issues arise in labor vs management threads/discussions/controversies.  The analogy should have been obvious.  Just in case it wasn't, I spelled it out.  If it still isn't, feel free to substitute institutions vs individuals for any reference to management vs labor.  You're smart enough to figure that out.

 

Is your "sick people" vs WalMart an attempt to get me to accuse you of calling pregnancy a sickness?  If so, consider the bait ignored.

596973[/snapback]

The medications at issue can be of value in treating other conditions besides pregnancy but why should we listen to doctors, what the eff do they know? Lets let Wal Mart executives decide those issues because doctors just don't get it.

If Wal Mart can decide not to dispense medicine A, there is no reason why some other pharmacy couldn't refuse to dispense medicine B. Sooner or later they'll get to a medicine that you need and maybe then you'll give a damn.

 

I won't even bother to bring up that what they are doing is specifically illegal in a number of states but why should a little thing like breaking the law matter? Clearly, that no longer matters to the right anymore.

 

As for your analogy, it certainly was obvious, obviously stupid. You see, labor unions are large institutions too. So you proposed an analogy using two powerful institutions pitted against one another in a discussion about large institutions and individuals.

[Mickey]

well, another swing and another miss, keep trying you'll grow up someday!

 

"You might want to expand your understanding of fascism a little bit."

 

nonsense.

 

i defined fascism above, it is private ownership of capital/business with government fiat dictating its use.  this is EXACTLY what drug stocking laws are.

 

while you might equate the nazi regime with fascism in the muddy soup of all things economic in your brain, they aren't the same thing.

 

you see, the same way that socialism is a concept that exists independently of the former soviet government (or even current sweden), fascism is a concept that exists independant of the little talking points you might think of when the name comes up.

 

your whole tirade about nazis was very elightning, but a total non sequitor.

 

if you really think corporations/business = bad and government intevention "for the little guy" = good, then you'll have no doubt already booked your flight to cuba to live in corporation free government intervention rich paradise.

 

when are you off?

596920[/snapback]

Yes, there couldn't possibly be any position short of the extremes now could there? It couldn't possibly be true that government interference in one endeavor could be pernicious and in another, a blessing. It must be all perfectly good or all perfectly bad. I either fly to Cuba or declare myself in favor of Wal Mart determining public policy with regard to access to medicine.

 

History has shown what happens when there is no regulation of business at all. Anyone who would be in favor of zero regulations of any and all businesses is an idiot. By the same token, anyone who thinks regulation is always the answer is just as big of an idiot.

 

Of course, since I am in favor of people being able to get the medicines their doctors prescribe, I am a Cuba bound fascist in your book. Makes sense.

[Wacka]

In post 53 (yours Mickey), Goodwin's Law went into effect.

 

Goodwin's law is one that states that in an arguement on the internet, the arguement is over when one side mentions the Nazis and that side has lost.

 

You lost Mickey!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Is your "sick people" vs WalMart an attempt to get me to accuse you of calling pregnancy a sickness?  If so, consider the bait ignored.

596973[/snapback]

 

I'm so sorry I got myself involved in this train wreck of a thread.

 

Look...anyone who wants the pharmaceutical industry unregulated to the point where a pharmacist can override a doctor's script based on their personal non-medical judgement is a thorough idiot. Peroid. That has nothing to do with the relation between corporate America and the government, and everything to do with medical ethics.

 

Mickey, if you really want to argue German economic policies through the 20's and 30's...study it for a quarter-century like I have, then get back to me.