What's new

The more I hear this guy the more I am impressed

 
One of my health related hopes is that they'll put a stop to big pharma advertising. Likelihood? No clue, but if we're dreaming.
Yeah I don't care which side you're on (other than the side of Big Pharma), I think everyone is sick of the damn medication commercials! Especially since we are only 1 of 2 countries that allows it!
 
I think this is a perfect role for him. As with most things, there are some things I really like about RFK Jr. like how he thinks our elites are poisoning us with food and medication. Other things I disagree with him on so I am happy he is in a role where he will strictly focus on the thing probably 99% of the population agree on.

I do worry he will get assassinated. Big Pharma and Corporate farms won't play nice with him.

Off topic but on topic with health. My wife started making homemade bread for my sandwiches....The bread goes moldy in 4-5 days. There are only a few ingredients in it. I could be gone a month and forgot to throw away bread from the store and it would still be in ok condition. That is terrifying. I truly believe in his mantra of our food is poison.
 
One of my health related hopes is that they'll put a stop to big pharma advertising. Likelihood? No clue, but if we're dreaming.
Then we'd get even more Insurance commercials but I do Hate the stoopid drug ads. Yeah let me find a Doctor to ask 400 questions about weird drugs and then buy some and hope I don't get suicidal thoughts from them after I break out in a rash from being allergic to them and wonder about 38 other side effects too. Read this super fast for the full effect.
 
I hope they have a cadre of the sharpest on the bounce retired Spec OPs people hired to act as body guards because there is no way I would trust any Gov protection
 
One of my health related hopes is that they'll put a stop to big pharma advertising. Likelihood? No clue, but if we're dreaming.

I hope he doesn’t touch it. If anything , he should rollback tobacco advert bans. Free enterprise requires free speech
 
Doesn't mean it was Constitutional. I don't want this admin doing unconstitutional shit any more than I wanted any previous admin doing it.

The constitution got dented badly almost 20 years ago when the SCOTUS ruled on campaign finance and limitations imposed by law upon it. The court ruled that a corporation has virtually the same rights to free speech as a human being. That limiting campaign donations from faceless corporations is limiting free speech. A horrible decision and the root of many corruption and ethics issues in our election process. I have posted this before but I can't retain the SCOTUS court case. During the Bush administration of by a Bush majority SCOTUS.
 
The constitution got dented badly almost 20 years ago when the SCOTUS ruled on campaign finance and limitations imposed by law upon it. The court ruled that a corporation has virtually the same rights to free speech as a human being. That limiting campaign donations from faceless corporations is limiting free speech. A horrible decision and the root of many corruption and ethics issues in our election process. I have posted this before but I can't retain the SCOTUS court case. During the Bush administration of by a Bush majority SCOTUS.
They had to rule that way. In order to tax corporations after the 16th amendment, corporations have been granted personhood status. Also why corporations have similar legal protections about defamation and privacy as an individual.

ETA: another good reason to repeal the 16th:stirthepot:
 
They had to rule that way. In order to tax corporations after the 16th amendment, corporations have been granted personhood status. Also why corporations have similar legal protections about defamation and privacy as an individual.

ETA: another good reason to repeal the 16th:stirthepot:

The 16th amendment was about a century earlier. A lot of water over the dam between the amendment and the subsequent SCOTUS ruling, so I say no. Two massive world wars went by, Korea and Viet Nam. Doesn't add up to me. Something else was driving that ruling $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. :idea:

What do you think about that ??
 
The 16th amendment was about a century earlier. A lot of water over the dam between the amendment and the subsequent SCOTUS ruling, so I say no. Two massive world wars went by, Korea and Viet Nam. Doesn't add up to me. Something else was driving that ruling $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. :idea:

What do you think about that ??
Understood, but many of these things need to go to court before the legal ramifications of these things are fully fleshed out. FYI I was incorrect earlier, personhood status was established in 1886:barf:. Then applied to tax corporations after the 16th.

Just like the ACA, Civil Rights Act, Chevron deference, and Roe, much good and bad policies have come from rulings make decades earlier, then reinterpreted later. Look at how some judges interpreted rulings from the early 20th century to "legalize" forcing vaccines.
 
In any event, I believe that RFK Jr is an excellent choice and an advocate for the American citizen over corporate/pharma profits. I can't look at or read about taxes etc without getting brain fog, rage and needing a 3-oz Bourbon on ice. It just pisses me off so that I can't rationalize or discuss it over a keyboard. :confused: What EastyBeast sez. :beer::beer::beer:
 
Top Back Refresh