Ummmm... the fuck? - Printable Version +- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih) +-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9) +--- Thread: Ummmm... the fuck? (/showthread.php?tid=9062) |
- Danked - 06-11-2004 So I can't get Thai food for lunch apparently because the place closed today in observance of Reagan dying. And then one of our delivery guys showed up exclaiming "I didn't think you guys were going to be open today... with Reagan getting buried and all." Why should we be closed? Are all these small shops and businesses really closing today for this? I can understand government offices and businesses shutting down in DC, but why should it affect a normal business day for us here in Jersey? The delivery guy then asked us "if we offered our condolences to the Reagan family." I immediately think he means drive down to DC and get in line with the schlubs to look at a dead president. No, he goes on to say, there's a few message boards up so grief-striken americans like myself can offer well wishes and tidings to the Reagans. So here goes... Sorry your husband died ten years ago and you buried him today. Keep your chin up. - drusilla - 06-11-2004 at least his death tour is finally over (that was for you buddy) - Arpikarhu - 06-11-2004 i am sure that all of the people he let die of aids and the people who became homeless due to his union busting are able to console themselves by watching his state funeral - Galt - 06-11-2004 Yes, because the government is the one who has had anything to do with stopping or slowing down AIDS. Once again, private business with an eye on profit is the one who has stemmed the effects of the disease. And Union Busting was one of his greatest works. Unions suck ass. They breed laziness. I am also so sick of hearing about the guy. No one has said a word about him for five years, and now he dies, they make it seem like the world has lost an important person. I think everyone's pretty used to him being gone. - Arpikarhu - 06-11-2004 Quote:Yes, because the government is the one who has had anything to do with stopping or slowing down AIDS. Once again, private business with an eye on profit is the one who has stemmed the effects of the disease.by keeping quiet about it and not educating people, he killed thousands. easily the dumbest thing you have ever written. Quote:And Union Busting was one of his greatest works. Unions suck ass. They breed laziness i stand corrected - Galt - 06-11-2004 You are a fucking retard. "Keeping it quiet"? Give me a fucking break. It's all I heard about for a decade. Just because the president doesn't talk about it doesn't mean that everyone else in the country isn't. - Keyser Soze - 06-11-2004 reagan spent millions fighting AIDS, he just didnt talk about it. - Black Lazerus - 06-11-2004 Quote:And Union Busting was one of his greatest works. Unions suck ass. They breed laziness.he's in the union he knows - Arpikarhu - 06-11-2004 Galt Wrote:You are a fucking retard. "Keeping it quiet"? Give me a fucking break. It's all I heard about for a decade. Just because the president doesn't talk about it doesn't mean that everyone else in the country isn't.you are the fucking retard. he stopped all federal discourse on the subject and denied funds to researchers. just cause you heard it talked about does not carry the same weight as a federally sponsored education campaign, something he opposed as a sop to the religious right who were his core constituency. i find it amazing that someone with your strong opinions has absolutely no knowledge of history. stop relying on what your daddy thinks and do some actual research. this vehemence of opinion without factual backing makes you either an idealogue or an ignoramus. your choice. - Galt - 06-11-2004 the projecting you do on a consistent basis is laughable. You continuously brand people as being a brainwash vehicle for their daddy's opinions. It is so obvious that you have some issues with your father that you need to work out. 30% of the deaths in this country are heart disease related 25% of the deaths in this country are Cancer related less than 1% are AIDS (about 15,000) related, less than diabetes or suicide. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_16t1.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_16t1.pdf</a><!-- m --> In 1988, there were also only about 15,000 people who died from AIDS <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/wallstj/89/300">http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/wallstj/89/300</a><!-- m --> Now, forgetting the spending on Cancer vs spending on AIDS, which is not even close to being even on a dollar spent to death ratio....The government spends $1700 per person with AIDS, and $20 per person with diabetes. The National Institute of Health spends about $150,000 per AIDS death There were only 600,000 AIDS cases reported in total from '82 to '99. 600,000! The government spent $6 billionon AIDS in the 80s alone starting in '83 the year after the disease was discovered. Spending on AIDS roughly doubled every single year from 1982 until 1988 (growing to $1.3B), when Reagan left office, whereas during the Clinton years, AIDS spending only doubled in the 8 years he was in office (growing from $2b to $3.8B) <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/96-293.pdf">http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/96-293.pdf</a><!-- m --> The last year Reagan was in office, there were only 32,000 AIDS cases reported <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001373.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001373.htm</a><!-- m --> , less than half as much as diabetes in this country <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/p0000248/P0000248.asp">http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/p ... 000248.asp</a><!-- m -->. Pulic opinion, much like how Arpi is following the crowd here and swallowing up what he reads in the press, is wildy ignorant and wrong <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.kff.org/healthpollreport/archive_Dec2003/upload/30112_1.pdf">http://www.kff.org/healthpollreport/arc ... 0112_1.pdf</a><!-- m --> Everyone always thinks that the government doesn't spend enough on AIDS while the above numbers show is just not the case at all. The belief that Regan "ignored AIDS" in the 80s is not a phenomenon that was created after left office, people thought it at the time, and they were wrong. They thought it at the time because everyone was deluged with how AIDS is just a massive killer, and its an epidemic that was going to wipe out the planet and the Government wasn't doing anying to stop it. It just was never the case, and the government did then, and has continued to spend dramatically more on AIDS than any other disease, infectious or not no matter what metric you use to compare them. Now, about uninformed opinions and doing research? Are the wild right wing CDC and Kaiser Health reports unreliable? current government facts on AIDS: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html</a><!-- m --> - drusilla - 06-11-2004 Galt Wrote:The belief that Regan "ignored AIDS" in the 80s is not a phenomenon that was created after left office, people thought it at the time, and they were wrong. They thought it at the time because everyone was deluged with how AIDS is just a massive killer, and its an epidemic that was going to wipe out the planet and the Government wasn't doing anying to stop it.he gave the public good reason to think he was ignoring it because he didn't make his first speech on AIDS until 1987. - Galt - 06-11-2004 How many speeches did he give on Diabetes? - Goatweed - 06-11-2004 maybe he should've put more $$ towards Alzheimer's... - Galt - 06-11-2004 maybe if he and the rest of the puritan government wasn't pro-life, we could be farming the 1 million aborted fetuses (fetusi?) a year and curing all sorts of diseases - Gooch - 06-11-2004 I crapped my pants in his honor he's a mixed-bag of a president. and my assessment is based on prosperity during his reign, and the complete crash b/c his trickle-down economics package not only didn't trickle, it basically assued Bush Sr. he'd be a one-termer. He sold out the future for the present, while in office. So, in essence, a mixed-review as far as i'm concerned. Edited By Gooch on 1086980901 - Mad - 06-11-2004 I think the real reason they're against abortion is because mostly white woman get them. It's projected that whites will be the minority in 2050. With Hispanics being the majority, mostly of Mexican origin. If that happens who is going to paying the bill then? - Galt - 06-11-2004 but the trickle down did trickle. The bottom 20% of tax payers did better than the 20%. It's a common misconception. And no matter what economic structure, you can't just have growth forever. There has to be booms and recessions. There always will be. Things don't just grow on a straight line. Human nature is that they get overly optimistic and pessimistic which augments those swings. The only economic strucutre than can prevent that is having the government control everything. - Arpikarhu - 06-11-2004 your use of diabetes as a counterpoint to Aids is specious and misleading. it is exactly the kind of bogus rhetoric used by reagan supporters to dodge the fact that reagan refused to ackowledge AIDS and to support any sort of educational campaign that might have many people from contracting the disease. lets not even get into the fact that aids is more serious than diabetes cause you cant catch diabetes from another person thereby increasing the diseases introduction into people exponentially. Quote:The political system in the United States divides powers between federal and state governments and among executive, legislative, and judicial branches at both levels. The presidency, part of the executive branch of the federal government, is the institution most capable of providing domestic and foreign policy leadership. The presidency, broadly defined, includes not only the person of the president himself but also the vice president, the First Lady, and other senior advisers in the executive office of the president, as well as members of the Cabinet and heads of other government departments and agencies. none of your massaging of statistics will change the history you and your daddies friends try so deperately to deny. - Arpikarhu - 06-11-2004 another similar one from Bronsky: Quote:AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981, it was only in October 1987 that Reagan publicly spoke about the epidemic in a major policy address. By the end of that year 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. How could this happen, they ask? Didn’t he see that this was an ever-expanding epidemic? How could he not say anything? Do anything? - Keyser Soze - 06-11-2004 No one honestly can call Reagan's record on AIDS spending a portrait of a do-nothing presidency. White House budget documents from the 1980s show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education and treatment. In 1998, the Congressional Research Service's Judith Johnson reported that the administration spent $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS from 1982 to 1989, with average AIDS outlays growing a generous 128.92 percent a year. "The Encyclopedia of AIDS" repeats another widespread myth: that Reagan never said the word "AIDS" until 1987. In fact, no later than Sept. 17, 1985, Reagan told reporters, "[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS . . . Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer." |