Was the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[Joe DeFuria]

Like his woefully underfunded no-child-left-behind education initiative? Sounds good on paper, the country's educators should be very happy with him, but go ask them what they think of Mr. Bush.

Um, Bush wanted vounchers, but the Congress wouldn't give it to him.

Geezus John, go ask a Communist what he thinks of Bush while you're at it. How do you define "educator?" Teacher Unions?

My Mom and my Sister are educators, and they think quite highly of Bush, thank you.

You want me to give the man credit for avoiding the inevitable political fallout from prematurely pulling out of Iraq?

Yes, because if you talk to the liberal opposition (you know, those people you keep asking me to "ask them about Bush", they'll tell you to pull them out now.

Sure, just as Reagan's administration's reaction to it was for years criminal. Regardless, as I've already said, prove to me that Bush has indeed spent the money as he stated (and not by more links to whitehouse.gov).

Because Whitehouse.gov lies?

 

[Sazar]

You want me to give the man credit for avoiding the inevitable political fallout from prematurely pulling out of Iraq?

Yes, because if you talk to the liberal opposition (you know, those people you keep asking me to "ask them about Bush", they'll tell you to pull them out now.

hmm... if you ask "liberals" or moderates the question they are more likely to say we should never have been there in the first place and had we gone in there should have been a better plan already to deal with the peace-keeping situaiton...

the pulling out before we should is something I have personally not seen put forth by any of the "liberals" I know... nor many of the conservatives which brings back the point about why pull out now when we can;t ensure the proper administration of elections...

still if things work out all the power to them...

 

[John Reynolds]

Showing that there are better places to put our research money than an entirely preventable disease is sophistry?

Just maybe, there's reasons other than your simplistic "hates gays" theory as to why people don't support increased AIDS research.

We know how to prevent it now, but we had no idea how it was spread in the early '80s. Had action been taken, think of the thousands of lives that could've easily been saved. And then ask yourself why action wasn't taken, why our president at the time wouldn't even publically acknowledge this epidemics existence for most of his office term. Or do you have another suggestion why our government sat back and watched American citizens die for year after year while offering very little support to research the virus if it wasn't because most suffering from it were gay men? You and Joe can continue ascribing my words to emotion-based rhetoric all you want, but I don't think it entirely unreasonable to suspect a neocon president's motives and follow through on this particular subject.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Or do you have another suggestion why our government sat back and watched American citizens die for year after year while offering very little support to research the virus if it wasn't because most suffering from it were gay men?

Well now, Clinton and "his government" sat back and watched my grandmother deteriorate and die from Alzheimers. Lots of people dies of hungar and starvation on "Reagan's Watch", just as they did under Clinton, and they do today.

You know, John...in America, the government isn't supposed to be the solver of our problems. At least, not from the conservative point of view.

but I don't think it entirely unreasonable to suspect a neocon president's motives and follow through on this particular subject.

Of course, you have to define what exactly a "neo con" is, and why Bush is one, before you start applying steroetypical motives...

 

[Sabastian]

Um, who cares what GAYS think or feel about AIDS, vs. the facts at hand? (Again...why are you asking me about GAYS. If you weren't the least be hypocritical, you would have asked me instead about someone with AIDS in the office.)

Joe, I'm addressing the fact that the neocons have a very strong history of not giving a hoot about AIDS because, shock, gasp!, it was very much perceived, and still is in many quarters (witness our very own special ByteMe's attitude, for example) as a "gay" disease. No, I don't believe it is, and you know me well enough for that.

Again, how many years was Reagan in office before he even said the freakin' acronym publically? You know, the time period in which probably 90% of those suffering from AIDS were gay.

WAY OT... but whatever.

Well ... even today 60% of hiv/aids cases are directly correlated with homosexual behavior. (Yes, HIV causes aids.) Today that demographic still has higher infection rates even with expensive education programs in place. You would think that this indicates that some misinformation is being taught wouldn't you? Whatever the matter WRT education programs they are not effective and something ought to be done to increase their effectiveness.

No AIDS as a virus does not give a dam if you are straight or homosexual, it will kill you ether way. But the correlation between anal sex (primarily a homosexual preference.) and the proliferation of AIDS is undeniable. The degradation of social morals with regards to sexual promiscuity and homosexuality (leading people to experiment in bisexual manners.) gave way to the proliferation of AIDS in the heterosexual population. But even still 60% of AIDS cases coming from an extremely small minority is an undeniable reality that only a moron could deny. You don't have to be an extreme right wing fundamentalist to see the correlation ether.

Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Is it a "gay disease", not exclusively but certainly if you engage in homosexual activity your risks are significantly increased. It is more of a statistical fact then some right wing conspiracy. However there has been a great deal of public funds used to suppress that fact. Further the money spent on AIDS research outstrips other epidemics that are more pressing by far in that millions more are dying from them then AIDS, why such a disproportionate focus on AIDS?

In 1996, with more than a half million cancer deaths, the National Institutes of Health dedicated $2.5 billion to cancer research. With over 32,000 AIDS deaths, $1.4 billion went to AIDS research. And with more than three-quarters of a million heart disease fatalities, $851 million went to cardiovascular research.
A blue-ribbon panel appointed by the Institute of Medicine broke it down this way: For every $10 spent per cancer death on cancer research, $110 is spent per AIDS death on AIDS research and $3 is spent per heart disease death on heart disease research.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9809/25/cancer.march.advancer/

 

[John Reynolds]

Well now, Clinton and "his government" sat back and watched my grandmother deteriorate and die from Alzheimers. Lots of people dies of hungar and starvation on "Reagan's Watch", just as they did under Clinton, and they do today.

More sophistry. Is Alzheimers a virus that we could help stop the spread of if the government spent a little money researching how it spreads and educates the public? I'm amazed at how you and Russ both sit back and dodge Reagan and his administration's complicity in the spread of AIDS in the '80s.

Of course, you have to define what exactly a "neo con" is, and why Bush is one, before you start applying steroetypical motives...

I'm not going to get into one of your semantics arguments Joe. No thanks.

 

[John Reynolds]

No AIDS as a virus does not give a dam if you are straight or homosexual, it will kill you ether way. But the correlation between anal sex (primarily a homosexual preference.) and the proliferation of AIDS is undeniable. The degradation of social morals with regards to sexual promiscuity and homosexuality (leading people to experiment in bisexual manners.) gave way to the proliferation of AIDS in the heterosexual population. But even still 60% of AIDS cases coming from an extremely small minority is an undeniable reality that only a moron could deny. You don't have to be an extreme right wing fundamentalist to see the correlation ether.

Wow. I rest my case. Joe/Russ ^^^

CVD is probably the #1 or 2 killer here in the States. More research isn't necesarily needed either, since getting your average American to exercise more and improve their diet doesn't require a lot of federal money. But I suppose someone like Sabastian will gleefully correlate a lifetime of laziness and poor eating habits to casual sex with an infected person (the latter, after all, is the result "moral degradation").

 

[Sabastian]

No AIDS as a virus does not give a dam if you are straight or homosexual, it will kill you ether way. But the correlation between anal sex (primarily a homosexual preference.) and the proliferation of AIDS is undeniable. The degradation of social morals with regards to sexual promiscuity and homosexuality (leading people to experiment in bisexual manners.) gave way to the proliferation of AIDS in the heterosexual population. But even still 60% of AIDS cases coming from an extremely small minority is an undeniable reality that only a moron could deny. You don't have to be an extreme right wing fundamentalist to see the correlation ether.

Wow. I rest my case. Joe/Russ ^^^

CVD is probably the #1 or 2 killer here in the States. More research isn't necesarily needed either, since getting your average American to exercise more and improve their diet doesn't require a lot of federal money. But I suppose someone like Sabastian will gleefully correlate a lifetime of laziness and poor eating habits to casual sex with an infected person (the latter, after all, is the result "moral degradation").

Jon, you missed the whole argument or something. All you are interested in is characterizing anyone whom has an opposing opinion on this as someone that is not logical. Your exaggerated example exemplifies that because you cannot really discredit the actual argument. You and loads of others are in denial about the whole matter.(as a result of politically correct educational bias.) Anyhow hold your nice PC line on the matter bury your heads in the sand for another ten years and pray that someone somewhere comes up with a cure for the disease before it kills hundreds of millions of other people. Forget about the statistical fact and close your mind a little more to reality. Forget about a preventative course of action and hold the status quo. It is not likely I would pursue this argument any further with you. I could embark on a character portrayal much in the same way you have but I simply could not be bothered. I would suggest though that you have much in common with the variety that cannot make conclusions for them selves and rather be spoon fed the pabulum you regurgitate.

 

[Natoma]

Someone here needs to visit Africa, India, and China, where HIV is being transmitted via Heterosexual sex in the overwhelming majority of cases. Where in the next 20 years, there will be a mass die off numbering in the tens of millions in those countries alone. Information courtesy of the WHO.

It's really sad that people in this day and age, with the millions infected world wide, are still trying to blame one portion of a society or another, with no basis in fact or reason.

Wow....

 

[John Reynolds]

Jon, you missed the whole argument or something. All you are interested in is characterizing anyone whom has an opposing opinion on this as someone that is not logical.

Where did I characterize you? You did that yourself with your diatribe about moral degradation, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You only proved my point that people exist in western societies who most definitely believe AIDS is a gay disease.

Your exaggerated example exemplifies that because you cannot really discredit the actual argument. You and loads of others are in denial about the whole matter.(as a result of politically correct educational bias.)

I attended public schools prior to PC becoming the rave, thank you very much. I never disagreed that AIDS is predominantly spread throughout the gay community via anal sex. Who is denying what?

Anyhow hold your nice PC line on the matter bury your heads in the sand for another ten years and pray that someone somewhere comes up with a cure for the disease before it kills hundreds of millions of other people. Forget about the statistical fact and close your mind a little more to reality. Forget about a preventative course of action and hold the status quo. It is not likely I would pursue this argument any further with you. I could embark on a character portrayal much in the same way you have but I simply could not be bothered.

Meowrr! Thine righteous indignation is duly noted. And look who's doing the characterizing. And just think how few people would've died, how less the disease might've spread, if we didn't have fundie hypocrites who gleefully break their own tenets so that they can sit and judge others from on high, pointing the finger and saying how it's a "gay" disease derived from their own moral degradations. Such a loving, Christ-like stance to take, don't you think? Oh, but wait, you're the same fella who'd try to get someone fired from their job if you found out they were gay, even though they'd done nothing wrong, broken no crime, been a good employee, etc. Such action would certainly make them see the error of their morally deprived lifestyle and bring them back into the fold, now wouldn't it? You, sir, are a fine ambassador for Christ.

I would suggest though that you have much in common with the variety that cannot make conclusions for them selves and rather be spoon fed the pabulum you regurgitate.

LOL Says the man who's regurgitating what the pulpet taught him. I was taught to hate and to hate well. My father is a KKK member. My mother grew up in the south. I've spent years struggling to remove an entire childhood's worth of programming to hate others for being different, so I do believe I can think for myself.

 

[Natoma]

I find the actualy quote much more troubling than the headline. Defaming judges as "activist" because their findings are not to the right's liking seems to be the new fad.

Um, a court actually "ordering a legislature" to reword a law to include same sex marriage seems to be a pretty clear case of "activisim" to me. Or worse, a city Mayor deciding all on his own to perform same sex marriages, depsite recognizing written law to the contrary, is just beyond scary.

They ordered the legislature to change the laws because the laws are unconstitutional in the state of Massachusetts. It's exactly what happened in the Loving vs Virginia Supreme Court case. The supreme court found the Anti-Miscegenation laws unconstitutional, and ordered all states to remove the laws. I'm sure if Bush had been president back then, he would have called Loving vs Virginia the act of "activist judges" too.

The Mayor of S.F. says that he is interpreting the state constitution of California in his actions. Now as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy that he's doing it, but from a legal standpoint, I don't know whether or not a Mayor or any other elected official has the ability to override a law and interpret the constitution themselves. Afaik, that's the job of the judicial branch.

 

[Sazar]

while we are still continuing on this way OT segue from the thread (if it can be called a segue) it would be nice to find out WHY the government is promoting ABSTINENCE only...

of all the retarded, holier than thou attitudes... whatever happened to condoms and PROTECTION just in case those poor little innocent kids actually did do the nasty?

Education is 2 pronged... teach them the pro's and con's and the leave them the option to pick and choose and they will learn... close off all avenues but one leads to social stigma's and due to lack of information... infection...

undoubtedly there are many who know about protection and still get infected but there is no logical reason to deny the upcoming generation the knowledge to deal with aids and other STD's in more than one way...

Abstinence is a quaint idea... but it is not practical to promote just abstinence over everything else...

to abstain from sex is a choice... having sex too is a choice... it is one that people make... not governments...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

More sophistry. Is Alzheimers a virus that we could help stop the spread of if the government spent a little money researching how it spreads and educates the public?

Um...isn't that why we should be spending bucke-loads of more money?! Because of how little we actually understand it at this point? I mean, two posts ago you said:

"We know how to prevent [AIDS] now, but we had no idea how it was spread in the early '80s. "

Suggesting of course, we should have pours lots and lots of moeny into it "earlier" to find out.

So why doesn't the Gov pour buckets and buckets of cash at Alzheimers? Otherwise, 20 years from now when we "understand it", I can come back and say "if only we had spent more money sooner?"

I'm amazed at how you and Russ both sit back and dodge Reagan and his administration's complicity in the spread of AIDS in the '80s.

I'm amazed that you blame an administration for the spread of a disease.

I'm not going to get into one of your semantics arguments Joe. No thanks.

Semantics? You called Bush a Neo Con, and therefore giving you the "right" to expect that his motives are that of "neo cons". WHAT IS THAT?! It's a straightforward question, isn't it?

 

[Natoma]

Agreed Sazar. I think children should be taught that they don't have to have sex, and that in fact they should wait to have sex until they're in a committed relationship with someone, for various reasons ranging from physical health to emotional wellbeing.

However, to make that the only policy is foolhardy, and will only lead to more infections. People will be people, and have sex no matter what anyone else says. It's simply human nature. Safer sex techniques should be taught, at least so those who would engage in sexual intercourse will know how to protect themselves. Anything else is frankly irresponsible.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The Mayor of S.F. says that he is interpreting the state constitution of California in his actions.

And he has no right in doing so. He is not a court.

... but from a legal standpoint, I don't know whether or not a Mayor or any other elected official has the ability to override a law and interpret the constitution themselves. Afaik, that's the job of the judicial branch.

As far as you know?!

NO ONE has the ability to break the law. I can't believe there is even a question about whether or not an elected official has to "follow the law". This is insanity.

That's what is so ridiculous about this whole thing, and downright SCARY about this.

The Mayor is certainly entitled to his opinion on the constitutionality of anything, but geeze...that does not give him (or you or me) the "right" to break the law. "Because he thinks it's right."

Of all people, an ELECTED OFFICIAL is one we hold to a higher standard it's the blatant DISREGARD for the constitution (separation of powers) that is nauseating.

 

[John Reynolds]

Semantics? You called Bush a Neo Con, and therefore giving you the "right" to expect that his motives are that of "neo cons". WHAT IS THAT?! It's a straightforward question, isn't it?

Joe, it's semantics in my mind because it's patently obvious Bush is a neocon. Your earlier post struck me as refutting that assertion, which to me is like arguing that the sky isn't blue on a clear day. Unless of course I misunderstood you. If I didn't misunderstand and the above was your intent, again, no thanks.

Speaking of Bush (yes, more OT, but I don't feel like starting a new thread):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/b...a6b41847c4733a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Is cooking a hamburger patty and inserting the meat, lettuce and ketchup inside a bun a manufacturing job, like assembling automobiles?

That question is posed in the new Economic Report of the President, a thick annual compendium of observations and statistics on the health of the United States economy.

The latest edition, sent to Congress last week, questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers. No answers were offered.

Anyone else find this an appallingly dishonest attempt to make real manufacturing employment numbers look better than what they are?

 

[Natoma]

The Mayor of S.F. says that he is interpreting the state constitution of California in his actions.

And he has no right in doing so. He is not a court.

... but from a legal standpoint, I don't know whether or not a Mayor or any other elected official has the ability to override a law and interpret the constitution themselves. Afaik, that's the job of the judicial branch.

As far as you know?!

NO ONE has the ability to break the law. I can't believe there is even a question about whether or not an elected official has to "follow the law". This is insanity.

That's what is so ridiculous about this whole thing, and downright SCARY about this.

The Mayor is certainly entitled to his opinion on the constitutionality of anything, but geeze...that does not give him (or you or me) the "right" to break the law. "Because he thinks it's right."

Of all people, an ELECTED OFFICIAL is one we hold to a higher standard it's the blatant DISREGARD for the constitution (separation of powers) that is nauseating.

All this being said, are you still intent on calling the Massachusetts Supreme Court "activist judges" or what they're doing "activism" based on the history of the Supreme Court wrt discrimination cases? Was Loving vs. Virginia a case of "activism?" Was Brown vs Board of Education a case of "activism?"

I'm interested to hear your opinion on this since you didn't touch on this important point in your reply post.

 

[John Reynolds]

As far as you know?!

NO ONE has the ability to break the law. I can't believe there is even a question about whether or not an elected official has to "follow the law". This is insanity.

That's what is so ridiculous about this whole thing, and downright SCARY about this.

The Mayor is certainly entitled to his opinion on the constitutionality of anything, but geeze...that does not give him (or you or me) the "right" to break the law. "Because he thinks it's right."

Of all people, an ELECTED OFFICIAL is one we hold to a higher standard it's the blatant DISREGARD for the constitution (separation of powers) that is nauseating.

In a refreshing break from today's bickerings with you today, Joe, I agree. I think the mayor of SF's actions could quite possibly hurt gays' efforts when it comes to their marriage/legal partners efforts.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In a refreshing break from today's bickerings with you today, Joe, I agree.

Well then I'll stop there, before I start saying things I regret...

 

[Sazar]

Is cooking a hamburger patty and inserting the meat, lettuce and ketchup inside a bun a manufacturing job, like assembling automobiles?

That question is posed in the new Economic Report of the President, a thick annual compendium of observations and statistics on the health of the United States economy.

The latest edition, sent to Congress last week, questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers. No answers were offered.

Anyone else find this an appallingly dishonest attempt to make real manufacturing employment numbers look better than what they are?

well if you think about it they are manufacturing.. burgers that is

and if this is the way they have always collected data than there is a definite flaw in the whole concept... I am with you on that...