Who's on your ignore list?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    ignore.... whats that.... its fun watchin people comment...  in fact hilarious...yes i admit...it gets tiresome and frustrating sometimes...  but most of the time its pretty funny
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from WesternOregon. Show WesternOregon's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    ignore.... whats that.... its fun watchin people comment...  in fact hilarious...yes i admit...it gets tiresome and frustrating sometimes...  but most of the time its pretty funny
    Posted by jcour382


    I gave up on "Reality Television" by never starting to watch it.

    Humor is all relative and my sense of humor finds little "funny" in these forums.

    I ignore liberally. Not because I ignore those I disagree with. To the contrary, I ignore those who are profane, incapable of proper styntax/spelling and exposing illogic. Considering that I have a real job, have traveled extensively outside New England, speak more than one language, don't have a Bostonian accent, graduated from high school and college and understand the postitive impact of a diverse group of contacts, have played the sport, respect coaches and athletes for their accomplishments and am a follower of God...I find little in common with MOST of the angry people on this forum.


    You're comment is among the 60% on this thread that are still readable to me.

    I'm sure if I knew most of these people I'd only be cordial and probably not associate with more than 80% of them.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WesternOregon. Show WesternOregon's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Question for you Patsfansince1966....





    Merry Christmas dude.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Amazing.  When I was typing one of my previous posts about corporate exec comp, I was thinking of HP as a great example. 

    And ironically, one of the two women that nearly ran HP into the ground (remember the class-action suit they lost for making it appear that 70%-full ink and toner cartridges were empty and so would stop printing?) just died of cancer last week.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Chris I wish it was that easy but the drug companies actually take a lot of risk in a system that the government hinders at every turn.

    Yes, a lot of new and innovated drugs are created at universities but also a lot are created by small start ups. I've worked in the same building as a number of these start ups. Typically the start ups start with research performed at colleges and try to improve the formulation from the. That's not to mention the trials that need to be run before the FDA will even look at examining it. That's the major bottle neck, the FDA. You see before a drug company can run a trial they have to file a patient. Once approved for the patent they have 7-13 years before their patent is lost and generic can make copies. Then the drug companies need to runs trials. A typical drug trial takes 3-6 years and is extremely costly. Once the trial is concluded the FDA runs their own trial which takes 2-5 years and again is extremely expensive. In some cases drugs companies will invest hundreds of millions into a drug before it even gets approved for human use. Then they typically have 2-4 years at most to market the drug and recoup their money. That also leaves them little time to build a name brand to hope customers don't go generic.

    That's how the US system is broken. In Europe the total trial time usually only takes 3-5 years and the patent doesn't offically start until the drug has been tested. This gives the drug companies 5-7 years to recoup the money invested in the product. It's one of the reasons why drug prices in Europe are at a reduced cost compared to the US

    The reason some companies hold on to drugs is because the level of competition between drug companies is massive. So, they tend to buy IP's quickly then do risk assessments after they buy them. I know not the best business practice but that's how it operates. The issue is after they do an in depth risk assessment sometimes they found out that the trial time might only leave them with a year or two of actual time to make a profit before the patent runs out or that the cost of the trials and improvements would be so large they would never recover what they invested so it's gets shelved unless the government deems it to be a society enhancing drug (ie cancer cure) then it gets supplemented by the government.

    The major issues are that companies are there for profit not the greater good. As such the create over inflated prices to sell the drug to turn a profit before their patients run out or they sit on a drug because it's to cost prohibitive to continue working on. The US needs to really re-evaluate it's FDA requirements and it's patient laws towards drugs to reduce prices and make sure more drugs get onto the market then before
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    Chris I wish it was that easy but the drug companies actually take a lot of risk in a system that the government hinders at every turn. Yes, a lot of new and innovated drugs are created at universities but also a lot are created by small start ups. I've worked in the same building as a number of these start ups. Typically the start ups start with research performed at colleges and try to improve the formulation from the. That's not to mention the trials that need to be run before the FDA will even look at examining it. That's the major bottle neck, the FDA. You see before a drug company can run a trial they have to file a patient. Once approved for the patent they have 7-13 years before their patent is lost and generic can make copies. Then the drug companies need to runs trials. A typical drug trial takes 3-6 years and is extremely costly. Once the trial is concluded the FDA runs their own trial which takes 2-5 years and again is extremely expensive. In some cases drugs companies will invest hundreds of millions into a drug before it even gets approved for human use. Then they typically have 2-4 years at most to market the drug and recoup their money. That also leaves them little time to build a name brand to hope customers don't go generic. That's how the US system is broken. In Europe the total trial time usually only takes 3-5 years and the patent doesn't offically start until the drug has been tested. This gives the drug companies 5-7 years to recoup the money invested in the product. It's one of the reasons why drug prices in Europe are at a reduced cost compared to the US The reason some companies hold on to drugs is because the level of competition between drug companies is massive. So, they tend to buy IP's quickly then do risk assessments after they buy them. I know not the best business practice but that's how it operates. The issue is after they do an in depth risk assessment sometimes they found out that the trial time might only leave them with a year or two of actual time to make a profit before the patent runs out or that the cost of the trials and improvements would be so large they would never recover what they invested so it's gets shelved unless the government deems it to be a society enhancing drug (ie cancer cure) then it gets supplemented by the government. The major issues are that companies are there for profit not the greater good. As such the create over inflated prices to sell the drug to turn a profit before their patients run out or they sit on a drug because it's to cost prohibitive to continue working on. The US needs to really re-evaluate it's FDA requirements and it's patient laws towards drugs to reduce prices and make sure more drugs get onto the market then before
    Posted by PatsEng


    I don't think anyone thinks the FDA is perfect as is, but the effect of the FDA testing protocol on drug prices is swamped by the effect of patents or other exclusive marketing rights.  Here is an example of a drug that was incredibly cheap and then became hugely expensive once it was granted monopoly status again http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364747/Preemie-outrage-Cost-makena-drug-prevents-premature-birth-rise-10-1500-KV-Pharmaceuticals.html
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    Chris I wish it was that easy but the drug companies actually take a lot of risk in a system that the government hinders at every turn. Yes, a lot of new and innovated drugs are created at universities but also a lot are created by small start ups. I've worked in the same building as a number of these start ups. Typically the start ups start with research performed at colleges and try to improve the formulation from the. That's not to mention the trials that need to be run before the FDA will even look at examining it. That's the major bottle neck, the FDA. You see before a drug company can run a trial they have to file a patient. Once approved for the patent they have 7-13 years before their patent is lost and generic can make copies. Then the drug companies need to runs trials. A typical drug trial takes 3-6 years and is extremely costly. Once the trial is concluded the FDA runs their own trial which takes 2-5 years and again is extremely expensive. In some cases drugs companies will invest hundreds of millions into a drug before it even gets approved for human use. Then they typically have 2-4 years at most to market the drug and recoup their money. That also leaves them little time to build a name brand to hope customers don't go generic. That's how the US system is broken. In Europe the total trial time usually only takes 3-5 years and the patent doesn't offically start until the drug has been tested. This gives the drug companies 5-7 years to recoup the money invested in the product. It's one of the reasons why drug prices in Europe are at a reduced cost compared to the US The reason some companies hold on to drugs is because the level of competition between drug companies is massive. So, they tend to buy IP's quickly then do risk assessments after they buy them. I know not the best business practice but that's how it operates. The issue is after they do an in depth risk assessment sometimes they found out that the trial time might only leave them with a year or two of actual time to make a profit before the patent runs out or that the cost of the trials and improvements would be so large they would never recover what they invested so it's gets shelved unless the government deems it to be a society enhancing drug (ie cancer cure) then it gets supplemented by the government. The major issues are that companies are there for profit not the greater good. As such the create over inflated prices to sell the drug to turn a profit before their patterns run out or they sit on a drug because it's to cost prohibitive to continue working on. The US needs to really re-evaluate it's FDA requirements and it's patient laws towards drugs to reduce prices and make sure more drugs get onto the market then before
    Posted by PatsEng

    Good post, and yes, I am aware of this problem, too.  Obama has proposed improving the patent system, which was ruined under Bush.  He is being blocked by the GOP House, who have a legacy of siding with established big business at the expense of small emerging business.

    My dad was an inventor, and even back in the '70s the system was even then rigged for small companies to be crushed by large multi-nationals, which happened to me dad, including death threats and threats to kidnap and kill his kids.  The patent law court system stole his self-made millions and corruptly found for the plaintive, who used Japanese consulate employees in Chicago to skirt the law with their diplomatic immunity protection while they did all that threatening and a bunch of corporate espionage to boot.  At least then, the patents lasted longer.

    I have several inventions that could not but make a fortune, one of which would save and/or improve billions of lives for mere dollars.  But my dad has warned me that my life would be ruined, too, if I dared to patent these inventions w/o a massive fortune to protect myself against corporate espionage and patent squatting. So I haven't brought these products to market.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from southnpatsfan. Show southnpatsfan's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : A lot of people don't know this, but many or even most of the drugs developed are created in government research projects located on college campuses, funded primarily by government research funds (tax dollars). Pharmaceuticals simply can't or won;t invest on the scale that the fed will. When a drug is created, it is then licensed to a pharmaceutical company (for a song), who in turn market the hell out of it during Pats games.   A lot of drugs are created by seemingly endless trial and error.  They take monkeys, rabbits, cats, dogs, bunnies, mice, etc. and expose them to doses of varied formulae, time how long it takes for the test animals die (often with a stop watch), then tweak the formula and repeat the process.  Each animal is dissected to determine the effects of the formula.  In other words, they try to find results first, then pair them with diseases to treat the diseases.  So Rogaine was discovered to stop certain types of baldness, but was funded as a heart drug. Take away the gov't funding on campuses and most drug research will grind to a halt.  As it is, Big Pharma has been pulling drugs from circulation because they don't make ENOUGH money, but they may hold the exclusive license, so nobody can produce and sell the drug in their place that your tax dollars developed because some CEO doesn't like the lower ROI that the particular drug offers. Thus, little Johnny dies an early death of a curable or treatable disease so some CEO can keep his stock price higher for when he/she retires in three years and eventually cashes out his stock options (you can thank Reagan for that last bit of reality, as he passed the tax law that shifted exec comp to primarily stock options, meaning execs would thereafter run companies with only the near future in mind, ditching any care for corporation's long-term health and wealth). Now you know a little more about the real world and may appreciate more what college research contributes.  Guys like PatsFan1966 sacrifice their personal prosperity, working massive hours for peanuts, all for the greater good of the world, and you knock him for not being more socially Darwinistic.  Think about that they next time you fill a prescription for your sick kid. 
    Posted by chrisakawoody


    Chris,
    I really appreciate the info and behind the scenes lesson (not being sarcastic), most of us have our suspicions but don't have the first hand knowledge.

    With the case of 66 he would be more believable, but he whines and waves his own flag to much and it seems he comes here just to trade insults. If in fact he is 100% real, then I applaud him.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    I think he is writing from truth.  His descriped experiences match closely my cousin's experiences. 

    Thanks for the compliment.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Who's on your ignore list? : Honored to be included in some great company.  Thanks!!!
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Mine has patfansince1966
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    Chris I wish it was that easy but the drug companies actually take a lot of risk in a system that the government hinders at every turn. Yes, a lot of new and innovated drugs are created at universities but also a lot are created by small start ups. I've worked in the same building as a number of these start ups. Typically the start ups start with research performed at colleges and try to improve the formulation from the. That's not to mention the trials that need to be run before the FDA will even look at examining it. That's the major bottle neck, the FDA. You see before a drug company can run a trial they have to file a patient. Once approved for the patent they have 7-13 years before their patent is lost and generic can make copies. Then the drug companies need to runs trials. A typical drug trial takes 3-6 years and is extremely costly. Once the trial is concluded the FDA runs their own trial which takes 2-5 years and again is extremely expensive. In some cases drugs companies will invest hundreds of millions into a drug before it even gets approved for human use. Then they typically have 2-4 years at most to market the drug and recoup their money. That also leaves them little time to build a name brand to hope customers don't go generic. That's how the US system is broken. In Europe the total trial time usually only takes 3-5 years and the patent doesn't offically start until the drug has been tested. This gives the drug companies 5-7 years to recoup the money invested in the product. It's one of the reasons why drug prices in Europe are at a reduced cost compared to the US The reason some companies hold on to drugs is because the level of competition between drug companies is massive. So, they tend to buy IP's quickly then do risk assessments after they buy them. I know not the best business practice but that's how it operates. The issue is after they do an in depth risk assessment sometimes they found out that the trial time might only leave them with a year or two of actual time to make a profit before the patent runs out or that the cost of the trials and improvements would be so large they would never recover what they invested so it's gets shelved unless the government deems it to be a society enhancing drug (ie cancer cure) then it gets supplemented by the government. The major issues are that companies are there for profit not the greater good. As such the create over inflated prices to sell the drug to turn a profit before their patients run out or they sit on a drug because it's to cost prohibitive to continue working on. The US needs to really re-evaluate it's FDA requirements and it's patient laws towards drugs to reduce prices and make sure more drugs get onto the market then before
    Posted by PatsEng


    Another reason for cheaper drugs elsewhere is govermental price ceilings on meds.  By and large the US is funding R&D research for meds worldwide. 

    And you are right Eng, the mfrs are in the business of making money.  We'll never get to any kind of financially effective healthcare system until every stakeholder in that system (including consumers) are accountable for their end of the deal. 

    The most recent "are you kidding me" in the pharmaceutical industry that I have been exposed to is Solodyne.  This is a medication that has been approved for acne use.  The cost can run anywhere from $700-$1500 per 30 day supply.  This medication's patent request should have NEVER been approved by the FDA specifically for these purposes by the FDA.  Why?  Essentially Solodyne is just a time released form of an antibiotic that has been around for nearly 40 years and is currently available without the time release formula for around $40 for a 30 day supply. 

    The mfr is getting a mark up increase of 1700-3700% over the cost of the generic antibiotic. 

    So this is where I say all stakeholders in the healthcare debate must be accountable.  The government never should have approved this.  The mfr is going to have to be forced to take a lower margin because they can't seem to do it themselves.  The prescribing physician cannot be wooed to pharm rep who's in his/her office 3x per week, and the consumer has to know more about what they can do to keep costs down or be forced into plans where they take the brunt of the cost on themselves. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : Another reason for cheaper drugs elsewhere is govermental price ceilings on meds.  By and large the US is funding R&D research for meds worldwide.  And you are right Eng, the mfrs are in the business of making money.  We'll never get to any kind of financially effective healthcare system until every stakeholder in that system (including consumers) are accountable for their end of the deal.  The most recent "are you kidding me" in the pharmaceutical industry that I have been exposed to is Solodyne.  This is a medication that has been approved for acne use.  The cost can run anywhere from $700-$1500 per 30 day supply.  This medication's patent request should have NEVER been approved by the FDA specifically for these purposes by the FDA.  Why?  Essentially Solodyne is just a time released form of an antibiotic that has been around for nearly 40 years and is currently available without the time release formula for around $40 for a 30 day supply.  The mfr is getting a mark up increase of 1700-3700% over the cost of the generic antibiotic.  So this is where I say all stakeholders in the healthcare debate must be accountable.  The government never should have approved this.  The mfr is going to have to be forced to take a lower margin because they can't seem to do it themselves.  The prescribing physician cannot be wooed to pharm rep who's in his/her office 3x per week, and the consumer has to know more about what they can do to keep costs down or be forced into plans where they take the brunt of the cost on themselves. 
    Posted by UD6


    UD one of my expertise during my undergrad was nano developed time release devices for medical applications. Mostly mine was for the release of radioactive tints for chemo patients. What the scary thing was that I had $500k to play with (not including laboratory fees) and it wasn't even nearly enough. I developed a very basic nano release system for the drug that only released under certain conditions. For it to get to market it would have been 9 years in trials (because nano devices take longer to try for long term affects) and would have cost in the neighborhood of $500mil to be approved for market. No drug company would even touch it since they would have only a couple years to make that $500mil back. Chemo therapy is such a limited market it would have cost upwards of $5k per injection for it to even be feasible to make a profit. Last I knew some company bought the IP from the school and hasn't touched it since. They are hoping technology will catch up to lower cost or the government will buy the IP for general good applications. You wouldn't guess it but time release technology could be incredible expensive to develop depending on application.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from southnpatsfan. Show southnpatsfan's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    I think he is writing from truth.  His descriped experiences match closely my cousin's experiences.  Thanks for the compliment.
    Posted by chrisakawoody



    You've always been a gentleman on here Chris, you deserve nothing less!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : The typical person that goes into pharma with a Ph.D. is going to be about 30 or so, probably older, as they will have done one or two two or more year post-doc positions.  So, the starting age in pharma would most likely be 30 something, say, around 34. That blows that theory. Secondly, they don't generally hire people right out of the second post-doc: they want around 8-10 years of INDUSTRIAL experience.  That puts the age up to about 40.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966


    OK, but you didn't answer what you were doing between 1974 when you would have graduated high school (again, assuming you were 10 in 1966), and 2000 when you got your doctorate. Thats 26 years, more than half of a normal adults 'working' life. It seems to me at least part of that time would have been spent getting INDUSTRIAL experience, if this was your choice of career path. Did you spend all of that time in educational facilities?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : UD one of my expertise during my undergrad was nano developed time release devices for medical applications. Mostly mine was for the release of radioactive tints for chemo patients. What the scary thing was that I had $500k to play with (not including laboratory fees) and it wasn't even nearly enough. I developed a very basic nano release system for the drug that only released under certain conditions. For it to get to market it would have been 9 years in trials (because nano devices take longer to try for long term affects) and would have cost in the neighborhood of $500mil to be approved for market. No drug company would even touch it since they would have only a couple years to make that $500mil back. Chemo therapy is such a limited market it would have cost upwards of $5k per injection for it to even be feasible to make a profit. Last I knew some company bought the IP from the school and hasn't touched it since. They are hoping technology will catch up to lower cost or the government will buy the IP for general good applications. You wouldn't guess it but time release technology could be incredible expensive to develop depending on application.
    Posted by PatsEng

    Nice follow up Eng. 

    I guess my response (without any expertise on the subject at all) is that purposes of a time release component within a chemo drug might be vastly more important and critical to the very serious treatment of cancer.  

    time release factors for chemo may provide critical benefit or detriment to the very life of a cancer patient.  Time release factors for acne, not so much.  

    You were doing big, important things (I think) in your research efforts for cancer meds.  Would you have felt the same kind of satisfaction if you knew you were doing it so a mfr could rebrand a generic antibiotic as patent protected, branded acne medication?  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Commie and Quag.....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : Nice follow up Eng.  I guess my response (without any expertise on the subject at all) is that purposes of a time release component within a chemo drug might be vastly more important and critical to the very serious treatment of cancer.   time release factors for chemo may provide critical benefit or detriment to the very life of a cancer patient.  Time release factors for acne, not so much.   You were doing big, important things (I think) in your research efforts for cancer meds.  Would you have felt the same kind of satisfaction if you knew you were doing it so a mfr could rebrand a generic antibiotic as patent protected, branded acne medication?  
    Posted by UD6


    Ohh of course not, but then again I do research because I just love my field. I work in material sciences and nanotechnology engineering. You'd have to be insane to want to do that for either money or gratification. Frankly I wouldn't care if my technology got used for time release acne or chemo chemicals, but it would make me feel better if it was used to save lives.

    I guess my point in the matter is that you can't just judge the cost of a medication based solely on it's purpose. Believe it or not my tech was bought not for the cancer treatment purposes it was meant for but it was bought as a more direct inflammation reduction medication. Basically a company wanted a medicine like Aleve but to enter the blood stream and only activate in an inflamed muscle.

    Actually most time release tech was not originally intended for it's current use. Odds are that the company was trying to design a targeted release application for something else and failed. They invested enough money that they found the easiest and least market niche for their time release device/product which happened to be acne. I'm guessing their patent was close to running out which force the switch and they are desperately trying to recoup any funds they can.

    As for the company who got the patent rights back and the prices sky-rocketed well that's a special case. Typically once the patent ends, that's it they can't renew it. In extreme cases where the company's patent ran out from long trials before they had a chance recoup the money invested to the point where it would have bankrupted the company they can file for a temporary injunction patent. If granted it basically gives them 2-3 years or until they recouped the cost of developing the medicine but those are rare cases.

    For the most part drug companies can't survive off of the high price new drugs. Most of the time they barely break even when the patent runs out. It's usually the name brand and people not trusting generic that they make their profit long term. Companies like Bayer actually have tons of drugs on the market and actually have dozens of smaller companies not even involved with the drug world. The reason is if people suddenly stopped buying Bayer and starting buying store generic they would go under otherwise. It's essentially a gamble. All drug companies hope to find that one long term last drug they can stick their name to that people look for. They create thousands of drugs to find that one drug and most drugs they tend to lose money or break even. It's kind of scary when you think about it how fragile that system is and how much better it could be.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : If you met my cousin, he is the kind of guy that is most people's favorite friend.  Very nice, funny guy.  Smart.  Talented.  Very sociable and warm.  A victim of politics, not economics. Really, we will all be victims in what is happening.   And in case you didn't hear about, corporations have slashed R&D, even when many are realizing record profits.  Just like they are shedding workers while they are profitable.  There are corparations (aka "job creators") that are sitting atop fortunes in cash reserves who refuse to go first and hire back workers, which is what is desperately needed to create the disposable income that creates the consumer spending that creates the consumer demand for more products.  It all goes back to that tax law from 1986.  It is the single worst law passed in U.S. economic history, IMO. It is not as simple as you have been taught to believe.
    Posted by chrisakawoody


    Chris, I have been an Sr Executive at a few top companies, names you know that fall into the fortune 100 list. I am one of these bad guys that steals from the poor. Believe it our not most of us care about your cousin and want to create jobs.

    Companies have to keep sales high and cost low, that is what you and everyone else expect. Don't believe me? Tell me the last over priced poor selling product you bought. Our challenge today is a national leadership that has no idea what it is doing. Because of this business environment is unstable and in an unstable business environment companies do not hire, grants (which come from companies) - do not get given.

    I have seen friends and families lose years of work and savings and it breaks my heart. I have daughters trying to make a start in life and it is hard. The next election has to fix this or we will have greater issues.

    This is a Football thread so I am done.

    Merry Christmas and God Bless
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Rex Ryan.  Ignore, ignore, ignore.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    My ignore list (partial):

    Anything Rex Ryan says

    Soccer

    Lady Gaga

    Any further discussion about Tim Tebow's greatness, magnanimity or Godliness

    Snookie

    Occupy Anyplace

    Anything Jerry Sandusky's lawyers say

    People with metal sticking out of their faces

    Michael Moore
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rodimus77. Show Rodimus77's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    I loved Friends.
    Posted by tcal2-


    tcal2, call me crazy, but I still have no idea why Brad left her for Angelina Jolie.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : tcal2, call me crazy, but I still have no idea why Brad left her for Angelina Jolie.
    Posted by Rodimus77


    I think he wanted kids and she wasn't as eager.  From an attractiveness perspective though I prefer Jen.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    My ignore list (partial): Anything Rex Ryan says Soccer Lady Gaga Any further discussion about Tim Tebow's greatness, magnanimity or Godliness Snookie Occupy Anyplace Anything Jerry Sandusky's lawyers say People with metal sticking out of their faces Michael Moore
    Posted by Muzwell


    Nice.  Especially Snookie. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share