| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM |
| Object: |
We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 03:05:00 AM |
|
|
In article <4248e072$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2amul$g58$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's *also*
good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few bucks
to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they can make
vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs that
they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by someone in a
different country for less money then the US job is gone. If they can
expand by hiring more people overseas then they will not hire any
Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that we lost millions of jobs under Bush?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 11:41:13 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2amul$g58$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's *also*
good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few bucks
to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they can make
vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs that
they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by someone in a
different country for less money then the US job is gone. If they can
expand by hiring more people overseas then they will not hire any
Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that why US industries are shrinking and the US economy more and
more resembles a 3rd world developing nation? Go to a store. Look at
10 items that are being sold. See if any are made in the US.
Lot's of work for foreign workers. Lot's of borrowing from the US
to buy stuff.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 10:02:53 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2appp$jqk$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2amul$g58$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's *also*
good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few bucks
to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they can make
vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs
that they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by someone
in a different country for less money then the US job is gone. If
they can expand by hiring more people overseas then they will not hire
any Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that why US industries are shrinking and the US economy more and
more resembles a 3rd world developing nation?
You really are an idiot. If our economy resembles some third world country
then Europe must resemble the fourth world since their economy is in worse
shape than ours, not that our economy is in bad shape.
I'm curious to know which third world country is our economy like. Please
tell us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 10:59:32 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2appp$jqk$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2amul$g58$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's *also*
good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few bucks
to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they can make
vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs
that they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by someone
in a different country for less money then the US job is gone. If
they can expand by hiring more people overseas then they will not hire
any Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that why US industries are shrinking and the US economy more and
more resembles a 3rd world developing nation?
You really are an idiot. If our economy resembles some third world country
then Europe must resemble the fourth world since their economy is in worse
shape than ours, not that our economy is in bad shape.
Lessee, lower rates of poverty, better health, and they don't import
everything from Asia.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:46:29 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dbnj$nas$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2appp$jqk$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2amul$g58$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of
the world? When companies shift operations to other countries,
it's not the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the
debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's
*also* good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few
bucks to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they
can make vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs
that they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by
someone in a different country for less money then the US job is
gone. If they can expand by hiring more people overseas then they
will not hire any Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that why US industries are shrinking and the US economy more and
more resembles a 3rd world developing nation?
You really are an idiot. If our economy resembles some third world
country then Europe must resemble the fourth world since their economy
is in worse shape than ours, not that our economy is in bad shape.
Lessee, lower rates of poverty, better health,
Double digit unemployment, near bankrupt healthcare (EU nations are having
to cut back on their many social programs because of depleting funds),
crippling taxes.
The United States has lower unemployment, higher growth, and lower taxes
which stimulate economic growth.
and they don't import everything from Asia.
You're dreaming.
"According to China's official statistics, apparel exports to the United
States were up 147% in February to US$650 million while shipments to
Europe rose 188% to US$783 million."
http://www.emergingtextiles.com/?q=art&s=050329-trad&r=free&n=1
And that's just apparel.
I'm curious to know which third world country is our economy like.
Please tell us.
Too afraid to answer address this request?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:27:27 AM |
|
|
In article <424a4b45$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dbnj$nas$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2appp$jqk$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2amul$g58$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of
the world? When companies shift operations to other countries,
it's not the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the
debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's
*also* good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few
bucks to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they
can make vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs
that they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by
someone in a different country for less money then the US job is
gone. If they can expand by hiring more people overseas then they
will not hire any Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that why US industries are shrinking and the US economy more and
more resembles a 3rd world developing nation?
You really are an idiot. If our economy resembles some third world
country then Europe must resemble the fourth world since their economy
is in worse shape than ours, not that our economy is in bad shape.
Lessee, lower rates of poverty, better health,
Double digit unemployment, near bankrupt healthcare (EU nations are having
to cut back on their many social programs because of depleting funds),
crippling taxes.
All economies go in cycles. The US isn't exactly booming either.
The United States has lower unemployment, higher growth, and lower taxes
which stimulate economic growth.
Then why has the US lost jobs since Bush took office?
and they don't import everything from Asia.
You're dreaming.
"According to China's official statistics, apparel exports to the United
States were up 147% in February to US$650 million while shipments to
Europe rose 188% to US$783 million."
http://www.emergingtextiles.com/?q=art&s=050329-trad&r=free&n=1
And that's just apparel.
And that's just China.
I'm curious to know which third world country is our economy like.
Please tell us.
Too afraid to answer address this request?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:23:26 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of
the world? When companies shift operations to other countries,
it's not the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the
debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often
have significant operations in the US.
Completely irrelevant. Every dollar thAt is invested overseas is a
dollar that leaves the country.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's
*also* good for the economy.
LOL!
You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their domestic operations...
Lessee, spending jobs overseas creates jobs in the US.
Got it.
Kook.
Corporations aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few
bucks to undercut the competition...they are out to expand so they
can make vastly *more* money.
Corporations aern't charities. They're not out to create ANY jobs
that they don't have to create. If a job can done as well by
someone in a different country for less money then the US job is
gone. If they can expand by hiring more people overseas then they
will not hire any Americans.
The United States imports far more jobs than it exports.
Is that why US industries are shrinking and the US economy more and
more resembles a 3rd world developing nation?
You really are an idiot. If our economy resembles some third world
country then Europe must resemble the fourth world since their economy
is in worse shape than ours, not that our economy is in bad shape.
Lessee, lower rates of poverty, better health,
Double digit unemployment,
Better safety net.
near bankrupt healthcare
Not as bad as the US. Medicare is expected to collapse within a couple
of decades.
(EU nations are having
to cut back on their many social programs because of depleting funds),
Sounds like the US, except not as bad.
crippling taxes.
"Crippling" for whom?
The United States has lower unemployment, higher growth, and lower taxes
which stimulate economic growth.
More people in poverty, less access to health care, worse health, AND
the US spends more for health care.
and they don't import everything from Asia.
You're dreaming.
"According to China's official statistics, apparel exports to the United
States were up 147% in February to US$650 million while shipments to
Europe rose 188% to US$783 million."
http://www.emergingtextiles.com/?q=art&s=050329-trad&r=free&n=1
And that's just apparel.
1) That's only China
2) Europe has a larger population
I'm curious to know which third world country is our economy like.
Please tell us.
Too afraid to answer address this request?
It's your strawman. You answer it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 09:18:21 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2e27d$d87$1@bolt.sonic.net:
and they don't import everything from Asia.
You're dreaming.
"According to China's official statistics, apparel exports to the
United States were up 147% in February to US$650 million while
shipments to Europe rose 188% to US$783 million."
http://www.emergingtextiles.com/?q=art&s=050329-trad&r=free&n=1
And that's just apparel.
1) That's only China
2) Europe has a larger population
Nice backpedal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:24:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have "better
health."
and they don't import
everything from Asia.
Sure they don't. I sure don't know anyone in Europe with a PS2 or who
watches anime or anything....oh wait, I do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:25:43 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.30.06.24.05.246375@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have "better
health."
Are you talking about Canada and Europe? They have lower infant mortality,
higher life expectancy, and more access to health care, so yes, they have
better health.
and they don't import
everything from Asia.
Sure they don't. I sure don't know anyone in Europe with a PS2 or who
watches anime or anything....oh wait, I do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:06:51 AM |
|
|
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2ejs1$htv$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.06.24.05.246375@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
Are you talking about Canada and Europe? They have lower infant
mortality, higher life expectancy, and more access to health care, so
yes, they have better health.
They also have more homogeneous populations and fewer immigrants from poor
countries that bring down the life expectancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 08:42:22 AM |
|
|
In article <424adcab$0$33335$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2ejs1$htv$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.06.24.05.246375@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
Are you talking about Canada and Europe? They have lower infant
mortality, higher life expectancy, and more access to health care, so
yes, they have better health.
They also have more homogeneous populations and fewer immigrants from poor
countries that bring down the life expectancy.
France has many people from its former African colonies. Germany has many
Turkish workers. Just to name 2.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:19:29 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have "better
health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run, costs less, and
provide better health than in the US. Look at life expectancy and
infant mortality and you will find the US does not rank anywhere near
the top.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:44:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:29 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
Yes. The fact that you do not count people on welfare in Europe as poor is
your own failure.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run,
Wrong.
costs less, and
Wrong, not for the level of care.
provide better health than in the US.
Wrong.
Look at life expectancy and
infant mortality and you will find the US does not rank anywhere near
the top.
You're taking the US as a whole. You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 08:43:28 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.30.17.44.26.255348@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:29 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
Yes. The fact that you do not count people on welfare in Europe as poor is
your own failure.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run,
Wrong.
costs less, and
Wrong, not for the level of care.
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
provide better health than in the US.
Wrong.
Look at life expectancy and
infant mortality and you will find the US does not rank anywhere near
the top.
You're taking the US as a whole.
Well, duh!
You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century anymore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 04:19:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:43:28 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.17.44.26.255348@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:29 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
Yes. The fact that you do not count people on welfare in Europe as poor is
your own failure.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run,
Wrong.
costs less, and
Wrong, not for the level of care.
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies. The "low costs"
they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess where....the US.
provide better health than in the US.
Wrong.
Look at life expectancy and
infant mortality and you will find the US does not rank anywhere near
the top.
You're taking the US as a whole.
Well, duh!
Mistake.
You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then go
stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:39:16 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.30.22.19.04.650425@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:43:28 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.17.44.26.255348@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:29 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
Yes. The fact that you do not count people on welfare in Europe as poor
is
your own failure.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run,
Wrong.
costs less, and
Wrong, not for the level of care.
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
Those countries set prices based on the cost of production. The pharma
industry has the highest profit margin of any industry as it is.
The "low costs"
they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess where....the US.
So why do they sell in those countries?
provide better health than in the US.
Wrong.
Look at life expectancy and
infant mortality and you will find the US does not rank anywhere near
the top.
You're taking the US as a whole.
Well, duh!
Mistake.
You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation
of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then go
stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
You need to read the clause about the US constitution and laws made under
it being the supreme law of the land, and also the 14th amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 06:53:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:39:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
<snip>
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
Those countries set prices based on the cost of production. The pharma
industry has the highest profit margin of any industry as it is.
The "low costs"
they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess where....the US.
So why do they sell in those countries?
They have no choice, hence extort. You see those countries tell the drug
companies to sell to them at the price *they* set....or they will simply
declare their drug patents to be in the public domain, and make it
themselves. In many cases there are international treaties protecting
patents and other intellectual property in place...but they are simply
ignore. The drug companies have no choice but to bow down to the extortion
if they wish to retain any control over their very expensive to develop
drug.
<snip>
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then go
stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
You need to read the clause about the US constitution and laws made
under it being the supreme law of the land, and also the 14th amendment.
Doesn't change the fact that we're a federation of 50 countries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 03:22:16 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.31.00.53.44.880524@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:39:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
<snip>
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
Those countries set prices based on the cost of production. The pharma
industry has the highest profit margin of any industry as it is.
The "low costs"
they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess where....the US.
So why do they sell in those countries?
They have no choice, hence extort.
They can decide not to sell drugs there. Heck, they can decide to not even
submit their drugs for approval there.
You see those countries tell the drug
companies to sell to them at the price *they* set....or they will simply
declare their drug patents to be in the public domain, and make it
themselves.
Not so.
In many cases there are international treaties protecting
patents and other intellectual property in place...but they are simply
ignore.
Boo-hoo, the poor drug companies.
The drug companies have no choice but to bow down to the extortion
if they wish to retain any control over their very expensive to develop
drug.
Except most new drugs are developed in universities with federal funding.
<snip>
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then go
stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
You need to read the clause about the US constitution and laws made
under it being the supreme law of the land, and also the 14th amendment.
Doesn't change the fact that we're a federation of 50 countries.
Yes it does. We were never that -- the 14th amendment changed all that,
long before there were 50 states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 09:28:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:22:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.31.00.53.44.880524@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:39:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
<snip>
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
Those countries set prices based on the cost of production. The pharma
industry has the highest profit margin of any industry as it is.
The "low costs"
they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess where....the US.
So why do they sell in those countries?
They have no choice, hence extort.
They can decide not to sell drugs there. Heck, they can decide to not even
submit their drugs for approval there.
Yes, they can do both those things....and the governments will simply make
their own knockoffs of the drug.
You see those countries tell the drug companies to sell to them at the
price *they* set....or they will simply declare their drug patents to be
in the public domain, and make it themselves.
Not so.
Yes that is exactly what happens.
In many cases there are international treaties protecting
patents and other intellectual property in place...but they are simply
ignore.
Boo-hoo, the poor drug companies.
Leftist nut.
The drug companies have no choice but to bow down to the extortion
if they wish to retain any control over their very expensive to develop
drug.
Except most new drugs are developed in universities with federal funding.
*****.
<snip>
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then go
stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
You need to read the clause about the US constitution and laws made
under it being the supreme law of the land, and also the 14th amendment.
Doesn't change the fact that we're a federation of 50 countries.
Yes it does. We were never that -- the 14th amendment changed all that,
long before there were 50 states.
No it didn't. Sure it establishes that the Federal government protects the
rights of it's citizens, and that it's authority is over that of the
States. But that doesn't change what we are. It certainly doesn't override
the *rest* of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 08:57:28 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.31.15.27.56.741769@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:22:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.31.00.53.44.880524@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:39:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
<snip>
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
Those countries set prices based on the cost of production. The
pharma
industry has the highest profit margin of any industry as it is.
The "low costs"
they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess where....the US.
So why do they sell in those countries?
They have no choice, hence extort.
They can decide not to sell drugs there. Heck, they can decide to not
even
submit their drugs for approval there.
Yes, they can do both those things....and the governments will simply make
their own knockoffs of the drug.
You see those countries tell the drug companies to sell to them at the
price *they* set....or they will simply declare their drug patents to be
in the public domain, and make it themselves.
Not so.
Yes that is exactly what happens.
In many cases there are international treaties protecting
patents and other intellectual property in place...but they are simply
ignore.
Boo-hoo, the poor drug companies.
Leftist nut.
The drug companies have no choice but to bow down to the extortion
if they wish to retain any control over their very expensive to develop
drug.
Except most new drugs are developed in universities with federal
funding.
*****.
Look it up. Consumer Reports has done several stories in the past decade.
<snip>
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then
go
stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
You need to read the clause about the US constitution and laws made
under it being the supreme law of the land, and also the 14th
amendment.
Doesn't change the fact that we're a federation of 50 countries.
Yes it does. We were never that -- the 14th amendment changed all that,
long before there were 50 states.
No it didn't. Sure it establishes that the Federal government protects the
rights of it's citizens, and that it's authority is over that of the
States. But that doesn't change what we are. It certainly doesn't override
the *rest* of the Constitution.
Actually, an amendment overrides any part that conflicts with it. That's
why it's called an amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 11:04:06 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.31.00.53.44.880524@NOSPAM.liamslider.com:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:39:16 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
Those countries set prices based on the cost of production. The pharma
industry has the highest profit margin of any industry as it is.
The "low costs" they get for medicines cause higher prices...guess
where....the US.
So why do they sell in those countries?
They have no choice, hence extort. You see those countries tell the drug
companies to sell to them at the price *they* set....or they will simply
declare their drug patents to be in the public domain, and make it
themselves. In many cases there are international treaties protecting
patents and other intellectual property in place...but they are simply
ignore. The drug companies have no choice but to bow down to the
extortion if they wish to retain any control over their very expensive
to develop drug.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries. Read the Constitution, then
go stick your uber-nationalism where the sun don't shine.
You need to read the clause about the US constitution and laws made
under it being the supreme law of the land, and also the 14th
amendment.
Doesn't change the fact that we're a federation of 50 countries.
Well, they're not really countries but they do have a high level of
autonomy. It drives my acccountant of a wife crazy trying to figure out
the tax laws of different states because they are all completely
different.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 09:58:26 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:43:28 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.17.44.26.255348@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:29 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
Yes. The fact that you do not count people on welfare in Europe as poor is
your own failure.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run,
Wrong.
costs less, and
Wrong, not for the level of care.
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
LOL! You're a kook!
Tell us: When does Canada make raids into the US in order to steal
medications? After midnight?
You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries.
You're a kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 10:38:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:58:26 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:43:28 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.17.44.26.255348@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:29 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:59:32 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Lessee, lower rates of poverty,
Not true.
Do you have any idea what the poverty rate is in the US?
Yes. The fact that you do not count people on welfare in Europe as poor is
your own failure.
better health,
Having badly run socialized medicine systems do not mean they have
"better health."
In fact the socialized medical systems are better run,
Wrong.
costs less, and
Wrong, not for the level of care.
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
LOL! You're a kook!
Tell us: When does Canada make raids into the US in order to steal
medications? After midnight?
I never said steal, I said extort.
You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries.
You're a kook.
Read the US Constitution sometime. The whole thing, not just select parts
that leftists enjoy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:35:30 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
LOL! You're a kook!
Tell us: When does Canada make raids into the US in order to steal
medications? After midnight?
I never said steal,
"Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies."
^^^^^
I said extort.
How do they force anybody to sell drugs in Canada?
You ultra-nationalist leftists should
stop doing that. The USA, is not a centrist nation, it is a federation of
many different countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them
out does not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries.
You're a kook.
Read the US Constitution sometime.
Including the 14th amendment?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:59:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:35:30 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
LOL! You're a kook!
Tell us: When does Canada make raids into the US in order to steal
medications? After midnight?
I never said steal,
"Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies."
^^^^^
Ok, so I didn't mean it *in that sense* I meant it in the intellectual
property sense.
I said extort.
How do they force anybody to sell drugs in Canada?
As I explained in another post in this very thread, the Canadian
government goes to the drug companies and tells them that if they do not
sell them the drug at the price they want it at they will simply declare
the patent to be in the public domain, and manufacture it themselves in
Canadian facilities. It is, of course, a violation of various
international treaties for them to do this, but they do it anyway. The
drug companies have no choice but to sell the drugs at what the Canadian
government tells them to sell it for...and then charge extra for the
American version to recoup losses.
And yes, they may make slightly more than it costs directly for
production....but *research and development* is extremely expensive, and
the companies also have to pay all their other employees.
In those instances where the Canadians simply make their own versions of
the drugs themselves, they don't have most of those expenses.
This is how Canada...and other countries, screw over the US medical system.
You ultra-nationalist leftists should stop doing that. The USA, is
not a centrist nation, it is a federation of many different
countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them out does
not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century
anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries.
You're a kook.
Read the US Constitution sometime.
Including the 14th amendment?
Yes, including the 14th Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 08:48:01 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.31.05.59.34.301544@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:35:30 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada
and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
LOL! You're a kook!
Tell us: When does Canada make raids into the US in order to steal
medications? After midnight?
I never said steal,
"Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies."
^^^^^
Ok, so I didn't mean it *in that sense* I meant it in the intellectual
property sense.
I said extort.
How do they force anybody to sell drugs in Canada?
As I explained in another post in this very thread, the Canadian
government goes to the drug companies and tells them that if they do not
sell them the drug at the price they want it at they will simply declare
the patent to be in the public domain, and manufacture it themselves in
Canadian facilities. It is, of course, a violation of various
international treaties for them to do this, but they do it anyway. The
drug companies have no choice but to sell the drugs at what the Canadian
government tells them to sell it for...and then charge extra for the
American version to recoup losses.
Well, if the drug companies would be selling at a loss (as you implied),
why wouldn't they say, "fine, go ahead."
And yes, they may make slightly more than it costs directly for
production....but *research and development* is extremely expensive, and
the companies also have to pay all their other employees.
The pharma companies spend more on lobbying and promotion than on R&D.
In those instances where the Canadians simply make their own versions of
the drugs themselves, they don't have most of those expenses.
This is how Canada...and other countries, screw over the US medical
system.
You ultra-nationalist leftists should stop doing that. The USA, is
not a centrist nation, it is a federation of many different
countries, each with different conditions. Averaging them out does
not work.
Huh? The US is not a single country? Hello, not 17th century
anymore.
The USA is a federation of 50 countries.
You're a kook.
Read the US Constitution sometime.
Including the 14th amendment?
Yes, including the 14th Amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:54:42 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Yes. The per capita spending on health care is much less in Canada and
Europe, and everybody is covered.
Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies.
LOL! You're a kook!
Tell us: When does Canada make raids into the US in order to steal
medications? After midnight?
I never said steal,
"Because they steal or extort medicines from US companies."
^^^^^
Ok, so I didn't mean it *in that sense* I meant it in the intellectual
property sense.
I said extort.
How do they force anybody to sell drugs in Canada?
As I explained in another post in this very thread, the Canadian
government goes to the drug companies and tells them that if they do not
sell them the drug at the price they want it at they will simply declare
the patent to be in the public domain, and manufacture it themselves in
Canadian facilities.
But since that would be a violation of Canadian law and international
treaties, your scenario is just the usual stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 12:09:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:54:42 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
But since that would be a violation of Canadian law and international
treaties, your scenario is just the usual stupidity.
Yes, it *is* a violation of Canadian and international law. They do it
anyway. Virtually every socialised-medicine country does it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 11:52:05 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
But since that would be a violation of Canadian law and international
treaties, your scenario is just the usual stupidity.
Yes, it *is* a violation of Canadian and international law.
Which is why it doesn't happen.
They do it
anyway.
So far you have insisted that the US Census Bureau is wrong in
reporting the number of births and deaths in the US, the Social
Security Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, and the
White House are all wrong about the state of Social Security's
finances, and the United States is complicit with Canada in violating
international law.
You're really quite the kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
