CA AIDS fundings cut

[John Reynolds]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/04/BAGL65E0M71.DTL

Or, as I almost titled this thread, DeFuria bait.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The allocation formula is complicated, based in part on the number of HIV and AIDS cases in a given area and in part on how an individual city's application stacks up against the applications of other cities competing for the money.

It was the competitive portion that hurt San Francisco most this time around, said Douglas H. Morgan, a division director at Health and Human Services who administers the Ryan White program.

He wouldn't go into detail, saying that a report would be sent to city officials in the coming weeks highlighting "strengths and weaknesses'' of the application.

"It may not be that the city screwed up,'' he offered. Instead, he suggested, it may be that the applications from other cities were deemed stronger by the federal review panel that judges the applications.

 

[epicstruggle]

I wish they would cut all aids funding/research in half. Use the money instead to fund cancer research or altzermia(sp) lots of diseases that are not COMPLETLY preventable.

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Obviously, this is political move just to divert funds away from the "gay-filled liberal city of Saf Francisco."

I mean funds were diverted to NYC, the "the Right-Wing Capital of the World" don't you know...who got a 17% increase in funding.

 

[John Reynolds]

Well, for the non-naive among us the fact that the Bush administration knows it has absolutely 0 chance of carrying CA in the elections this fall, why not pump that money into states on the borderline and work up some good will there instead?

This'll teach SF to stop those gay marriages, though.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

First of all, see my above post.

Second, as you are claiming to not be "naive" among us, I would have thought you'd be more in tune with how well Arnold is doing in CA. (In terms job approval, and getting his agenda passed, including two ballot initatives this past week.)

California looks to be definitely in play this election year. Much more so than NY will ever be.

 

[John Reynolds]

First of all, see my above post.

Second, as a "native" among us, I would have thought you'd be more in tune with how well Arnold is doing in CA. (In terms job approval, and getting his agenda passed, including two ballot initatives this past week.)

California looks to be definitely going to be in play this election year.

Arnold is more liberal than a lot of Democrats. Almost every elected state office is held by a Democrat. And the 2000 elections looked like:

Gore - 5,861,203 votes, 53.45%
Bush - 4,567,429 votes, 41.65%
Nader - 418,707 votes, 3.82%

Will 1.3 million CA voters suddenly reverse their previous opinion of Dubya just because of the Govenator? Is the electoral masses that polarized that their governor's party affiliation affects how they vote in presidential elections? I don't think so.

But as Republican Congressman Tom Cole recently enthused, a vote against Bush is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

 

[epicstruggle]

But as Republican Congressman Tom Cole recently enthused, a vote against Bush is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

Very true. OBL will be very happy with Kerry in office. Deep cuts to the budget, in the form of less spending on national security, intelligence gathering and the like should be expected with a Kerry win. Im using his past votes to make such conclusions. Isnt a track record great.

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Arnold is more liberal than a lot of Democrats.

On some issues, yes.

But it doesn't matter...he's a republican, and he supports Bush.

Will 1.3 million CA voters suddenly reverse their previous opinion of Dubya just because of the Govenator?

You don't know much about "the people" and how they vote...do you .

(Oh...and it's only 650,000 voters, BTW.)

But as Republican Congressman Tom Cole recently enthused, a vote against Bush is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

Indeed.

 

[John Reynolds]

You know, all partisan nit-picking and bickering aside, I'm honestly shocked and appalled you two would so quickly agree with that logic. I suppose the Republicans who voted against FDR during WW2 were really, in essence, voting for Adolf Hitler, eh?

As a moderate who believes in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (sans welfare and affirmative action), it's the above sort of BS that pushes me away from the right.

 

[epicstruggle]

JR, Im using Kerry's track record to draw conclusions as to what he might do in the future. Where am I going wrong?

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Question for you, John.

If you were Osama, who would you rather see in office: Kerry, or Bush? Honest answer, please.

And I'm quite amazed (not quite sure if I'm appalled or just humored) at the Democratic outlook / approach on this whole election, that you punctuated in this thread: it's not about voting for your candidate...it's about voting "against Bush."

Will 1.3 million CA voters suddenly reverse their previous opinion of Dubya just because of the Govenator?

You completely ignore the fact that there is another candidate (or two) in the race. 600,000 more voters went with Gore instead of Bush in CA. I'd wager that not all of them voted "against Bush", but mayber perhaps some of them voted for Gore....which doesn't say much about voting for John F'n Kerry.

 

[John Reynolds]

Question for you, John.

If you were Osama, who would you rather see in office: Kerry, or Bush? Honest answer, please.

Honestly, I don't know. He was obviously crazy enough to plan such an attack while Bush was in office so I'm not sure he really cares. And who can say how logical is thought patterns are?

I just had a discussion with a co-worker who's an ardent Bush supporter and he stated that it scares him thinking what if Gore had won the last election. My reply is that I've wondered how Gore would've handled post 9/11 and I suspect (and could be wrong) that he would've taken inadequate action. I think there would've been air strikes against the Taliban, but I'm not sure our military could've talked Gore into putting troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Which would've been insufficient, IMO. That said, I think Bush, like the rank amateur of diplomatic and international issues that he oh-so-clearly is, has missed the target in his war on terror when he invaded Iraq. How again does it damage terrorism and those who support it by toppling a government that, according to intelligence so far, did not possess WMD that could've sold to terrorists or directly supported them financially? On the other hand we very much know the Saudis have been strong financial supporters of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and yet we do nothing.

Honestly, in spite of the damage Bush has done to our relationships with certain long-standing allies, I'd rather see our country err on the side of overreaction than on the side of inaction. Military action-wise, that is. I do not like the Reichstag-like, overreactive, domestic actions of the Patriot Act and the creation of the Homeland Defense dept. On the flip side, I'm also concerned that if Kerry wins we'll prematurely pull out of Iraq and leave that country a mess, something I think we're morally obligated to not do.

Again, I bash Bush because he's the incumbent. Let Kerry win and you'll see me giving him a hard time too (hell, I've already called him an electoral whore on this board). But saying a vote for Kerry is a vote for bin Laden is just rhetorical, partisan nonsense, and has all the class of an onion sandwich. Same goes for Bush's recent 9/11 images in his TV ads. Tacky, tacky, tacky.

 

[nutball]

Yeah, I know you didn't ask my opinion, but hey, freedom of speech and all that

What makes you think OBL cares who's in the Whitehouse? Because the Bush administration is being oh-so-effective against Al Qaeda, and a Kerry administration wouldn't be in... some... undefined way.

If you think OBL gives a damn who runs the US then you misunderstand him, Al Qaeda, and terrorism in general. It makes no difference to him who is US president.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Honestly, I don't know.

Of course, no one "knows". I was asking what you thought. And there's no doubt in my mind that he'd rather not have a President on a stated mission hunting him and Al Qaeda down every day, vs. someone with less conviction.

I think there would've been air strikes against the Taliban, but I'm not sure our military could've talked Gore into putting troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Which would've been insufficient, IMO.

That's my thought as well, and it is similar to how I think Kerry would handle the "war on terror." He gives no indication to me that he sees it as a real, legitimate war, but instead as some police action.

How again does it damage terrorism and those who support it by toppling a government that, according to intelligence so far, did not possess WMD that could've sold to terrorists or directly supported them financially?

So maybe Libya surrendering it's weapons program has nothing to do with Iraq?

Honestly, in spite of the damage Bush has done to our relationships with certain long-standing allies...

More bullshit rhetoric. What relationships with long-standing allies are damaged...any more "damaged" than they were pre 9-11? Same shit, different day.

Same goes for Bush's recent 9/11 images in his TV ads. Tacky, tacky, tacky.

I was wondering when you or Natoma would bring that up. Those were some of the most positive and uplifting political ads I've seen. There was no bashing of any one, or any party. But I guess the left just doesn't want to be reminded exactly what happened, who lead us through it, and who continues to lead us through it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yeah, I know you didn't ask my opinion, but hey, freedom of speech and all that

What makes you think OBL cares who's in the Whitehouse?

Because I think he prefers not to be hiding in caves, constantly on the run, having to worry about any communication he tries to make, etc.

I'm not saying that he has any more love or hate for the U.S. "depending on who's in office." I'm saying depedning on who's in office, his life (or death, if we're lucky), will be made all the more difficult for him to carry out his agenda.

 

[John Reynolds]

I was wondering when you or Natoma would bring that up. Those were some of the most positive and uplifting political ads I've seen. There was no bashing of any one, or any party. But I guess the left just doesn't want to be reminded exactly what happened, who lead us through it, and who continues to lead us through it.

My first immediate thought was that it's tacky to use a national tragedy for political gain. It would be like FDR using Pearl Harbor footage during his '44 campaign. So since he was in the White House when it occurred, he's allowed to make use of it? Tacky, and easily twisted the other way around, that we were successfully caught completely off guard during his watch. Guess he shouldn't have told our intelligence communities to back off the Saudis, eh? How many of the terrorists that day were Saudi? 15 out of 19?

As for leading us through it, we would've as a nation healed regardless of who was in the White House, Joe. And speaking for myself, having a draft dodger behind the Oval desk certainly didn't give me more peace of mind on 9/12.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My first immediate thought was that it's tacky to use a national tragedy for political gain. It would be like FDR using Pearl Harbor footage during his '44 campaign. So since he was in the White House when it occurred, he's allowed to make use of it?

1) Yes.
2) Whether it's "tacky" is all in how it's done. If this was an ad attacking Kerry, for example, then I'd agree it's tacky. It wasn't. It was very tasefully done, and it had a positive message.

Tacky, and easily twisted the other way around, that we were successfully caught completely off guard during his watch. Guess he shouldn't have told our intelligence communities to back off the Saudis, eh? How many of the terrorists that day were Saudi? 15 out of 19?

Ah, so now' who's using 9/11 in a tacky manner?

As for leading us through it, we would've as a nation healed regardless of who was in the White House, Joe.

But as a nation, will we continue to actively persue terrorists, or not? I think the answer is clear as long as Bush is in the white-house, which is the point.

And speaking for myself, having a draft dodger behind the Oval desk certainly didn't give me more peace of mind on 9/12.

Give it a rest, John, that was yesterday's news.

 

[John Reynolds]

Give it a rest, John, that was yesterday's news.

So is 9/11. The day you stop portraying the man as this great, principled leader of the free West, the mighty war president who shall vanquish all our foes, domestic and abroad, and I'll stop reminding you that his entire life has been that of a spoiled, protected little rich brat. One with, according to most indications, a fairly low IQ.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Give it a rest, John, that was yesterday's news.

So is 9/11.

That's just it, John. It's not. That's the entire point..

9/11 shapes much of our policies today.. You and the rest of the democrats just "don't get it." You prefer to "forget" about 9/11 as if it were just some isolated incident, something in the past that at most, we learn a few things from.

Rather than see it for what it is: one example of the continuing and real present day threat that we face.

The day you stop portraying the man as this great, principled leader of the free West, the mighty war president who shall vanquish all our foes, domestic and abroad, and I'll stop reminding you that his entire life has been that of a spoiled, protected little rich brat.

Oh...here come the ad-hominem attacks. I'm surprised you held out this long.

One with, according to most indications, a fairly low IQ.

*Yawn*. I just love it. Next, you'll be telling us all how Cheney's the one who's pulling Bush's strings, because Bush isn't "smart enough" to do what he's done so far...