"the governments of such nations are unlikely to let Big Pharma squeeze every cent they can out of such markets without simultaneously addressing the health-care needs of the poor."

Really? Why not? Our government does.

I'd buy all that R&D bullshit you are spewing if big pharma didn't spend 4x as much money on advertising as they did on R&D. You don't see any other field bitching about R&D. You say that the advertising makes all of its money back...well so does R&D, see,without it, they wouldn't have a fucking product to sell.

Also, loads of R&D is underwritten by you and me (assuming you are a citizen of the United States) in the form of grants to universities, who sell their research to big drug companies. And while I'm on a role, are you suggesting that big pharma co's drop the prices on drugs once the r&d costs have been recouped? Thats a laugh.

It's the repubs same old gambit. Deny that a problem exists, sit around a bitch about the anyone who says its a problem, then swoop in at the end and claim credit for any success that has occurred despite their efforts.

I once had an argument with a history professor who claimed that environmentalists exaggerated global warming. I asked him, "so what you are saying is, its not as big a problem as those wacky scientists are claiming? Are you suggesting that we wait until it IS as serious as they claim before we try to do anything about it?"

Its all about status quo. Republicans (politicians that is) are largely wealthy and unwilling to do anything that threatens the pile they have already made. When a problem becomes undeniable, they will announce other people's ideas as their own, give the contracts for implementation to their buddies and try to profit in any way possible.

Burn Newt Gingrich, you lying immoral prick, burn in your non-existent hell.

I'm a neutral voter. I don't vote for specific parties, I vote for individuals. The issues that concern me are less about what is happening right now, and more about the general, long term viability of the USA as a nation of law.

to that end, I simply cannot vote for McCain now that he has decided to pander to the religious right, and has generally sold his maverick, "good for america" position to suck on the teat of the military industrial complex. How a man who spent a number of years as a prisoner of war for absolutely no identifiable gain to the country could support the Iraq debacle, well, I have to think large sums of money are somehow involved.

As for Clinton, how can I support eight more years of Bush-like reverence for big business? I understand capitalism, I enjoy and profit from capitalism, but it needs to have a counterbalance in government, or it WILL liquify human beings (or their life savings, or their pension funds, or their homes) and sell them for profit. It just happens. After watching the fallout of Bill's decision to deregulate media consolidation rules, how can you trust the Clintons?

I'm voting Obama. Why? His last name isn't Clinton and it isn't Bush. Few stated policy positions? I figure that will change when he starts campaigning against McCain. I just want someone different, who isn't so heavily invested, personally and financially, in the status quo.

You all talk like politicians, liberal and conservative, have a history of actually doing what they say. Wake up. What a politician says means very little. Who a politician is beholden to makes all the difference.

nothing like a little xenophobic humor to set me to rights. What with a food shortage and now skyrocketing fertilizer prices, how long until we have a global food crises?

point taken, but I'm not really sure that a shady house deal is the same as say...selling out America's first amendments and allowing mass media consolidation. Just my own opinion. I don't expect saintliness from my elected representatives, I just want them to give a shit about someone other than themselves. McCain and Clinton have not proven to me, from their track record, that they are willing to do that. I will reiterate my point that Obama seems less "owned" by outside interests than either Clinton or McCain. Look at their personal finances. Who is worth ten million, and who is worth 100 million? Case closed.

I'd ask you the exact same questions about Hillary Clinton. Who would she sell her soul to should she win? The Rupert Murdochs of this world? Forgot her husband already did, was she part of the package? You miss my point entirely. Obama is SOMEONE ELSE. You seem to think that anyone who isn't for Hillary is just an uneducated boob, but for crying out loud, what evidence suggests that Hillary would be for the people? She voted for the war, and has essentially rolled over for the past 7 years, like ALL THE REST of the democrats. I want Obama because he is different, not the status quo, and may, (not will, I'm no optimist) may be something different. We already know that Hillary is MORE OF THE SAME which frankly,I do not want.

I would assume that you are a hillary supporter, so where do you get off talking about a politician being owned by special interests as if that is a bad thing?