Kay Said:

Why won't some universities invite Republican candidates to talk to students?

We Answered:

I've lived in Wisconsin for most of my life, so I understand how this state works (or doesn't work). The University of Wisconsin is more liberal than any Californian institution. The state of Wisconsin is mostly Democrat, as it's unions all lean far to the left, supporting only Democrats. How can I make such claims? 'Cause my husband used to be a school bus driver, working as a unionized member of the county. Every election season, we were (and still are) bombarded by recorded phone calls from "your union" to support their Democratic candidate (this year it's Mr. Obama). I hang up, 'cause I don't want anyone telling me who to vote for. And I resent the fact that everyone who belongs to a union must pay union dues, yet has no say in how that money is spent, or which candidate gets their support. I've heard that our university has welcomed many diverse speakers, yet will not invite others. They claim they're just doing what the majority ask for. I don't know if that's really true, but I'm sure you're going to get lots of diverse answers to your question as to why no Republican candidates were invited. As for freedom of speech, that's a fairy tale. You're only allowed free speech if it lines up with what everyone wants to hear. Otherwise, you'll be branded with all sorts of names, as people don't want to hear what they don't agree with. Get used to it, it will just get worse. <*)))><

Phillip Said:

I voted Straight Republican, then marked all Republican Candidates Individauly, Would it be considered Valid?

We Answered:

Are you sure they were straight. Maybe in the closet?

Carolyn Said:

Can some clever person help me out with the November general election in Sauk County, Wisconsin?

We Answered:

I don't think there is a Democratic candidate, unless I am thinking of another county.

Everett Said:

Big Pharma and who is looking out for our best interests?

We Answered:

Contributions aside, I also wonder how much profit they would like to make over the life of the drug. For example, if it takes them 100 million dollars to make the drug and over the course of say 10 years they make roughly 200 million a year in profit. Would that be adequate enough to compensate the company for creating a new drug and bringing it to market? Where do you draw the line for a free pass on making money exclusively on a product such as this? I want Big Pharma to make money but at the same time why should it be such an obvious license to abuse the advantage they would have over other companies in the market?

Also, why is there no generic insulin yet? That drug has existed since the 1930's. Eli Lilly did the initial purification and large scale production of insulin and have been making quite a bit of money from the sales of insulin. When you ask the companies that have exclusive reign over the production of insulin, they say that it is a biologic and it has be tested in clinical trials ALL OVER AGAIN just to make sure that generic insulin will work properly. At 85 dollars a bottle for pure insulin and over 40 million people with diabetes, a third of whom are insulin dependent. I think there is another reason they don't want the generic.

It is obvious that the government is helping Big Pharma with this Boulderdash!!!!

(Officially stepping off soap box and quietly retreating to my corner...)