No source sited from where you copied and pasted. I'm sure that the source is some totally unbiased source: It's also good that they didn't include any facts. Just opinions
"many observers contend..." Nice to offer an opinion with no backing. It's Bullshit. The numbers show that the government was doubling spending every year for a disease that inflicted a tiny percentage of the population.
Federal vs state: That's one of the basic concepts of conservatism. Make the federal government weaker and the local governments stronger. It cuts down on the size and power of a centralized government which is what the founding fathers were trying to escape. It was specifically written into the constitution. What rights aren't explicitly given to the federal government are given to the states.
What you posted was not even remotely close to a rebuttal to what I posted. Whoever that person was who wrote that (I guarantee it's not a reputable news source. Probably a FAIR or Michael Moore or someone else with an agenda, as there was no numbers even mentioned. They say that Regan ignored it, but didn't bother quantifying.
The statistics show that the Government spent shitloads on that disease immediately, and the spending doubled every single year.
My point again which Arpi totally couldn't coprehend or chose to ignore since his mentally lazy cut and paste job had nothing to do with was that though Reagan might not have talked about AIDS, his administration certainly spent enough money on it. And I know that I certainly heard about AIDS all the time when I was a kid. In school, on TV it was ridiculous. Now maybe that wasn't federal money, maybe it was federal money given to states, maybe it was individuals who funded it themselves, I don't know. But I know that from my personal experience I quickly knew what it was and how to prevent it, and it was beaten into me at a very young age.
i would be willing to bet the farm that galt and keyser are the only 2 people in the world who think that reagan was good for the fight on AIDS. your ignorance is mind boggling
If we're the only two people on the world, then your prior accusation is totally retarded. Do I lap up what people tell me, or am I the only person who believes it?
You argue like an infant. No fact, no reason. Totally irrational. You make an accusation, then when that accusation is proven 100% incorrect, you just ignore it, and make another accusation.
The numbers show that prevailing opinion is wrong. The guy was dramatically spending on a disease that kills an insignificant portion of Americans.
You are the rest of the unquestioning droves who just blindly accept the blanket and unsubstantiated claim that "Reagan ignored AIDS", are the exact "mind-numbed robots" that you accuse many of the right of being.
I eagerly await your "neener neener neener. I know you are but what I am?" retort.
Quote:then when that accusation is proven 100% incorrect,
i am still waiting for you to prove me wrong. your massaging of partisan statistics and your misleading use of comparison spending is so childishly obvious as to be laughable. you then use this nonsense as some sort of "proof" that i am wrong and then deride me. your argument style is essentially a series of falsehoods and then a crow of triumph. this amusing tactic may work with the idiots who would bother to think that you am smart, or maybe it was the way your daddy managed to fill your head with this nonsense.however, it doesnt wash with me. Howl your ignorance from the treetops, there isnt an organization in the world other than the heritage foundation or john birch that will say that the reagan presidency wasnt detrimental to cause of AIDS.
Quote:It took Rock Hudson's death from AIDS in 1985 to prompt Reagan to change his personal views
Quote:Throughout all of this Reagan said nothing and did nothing. When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagans, was diagnosed with AIDS and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out as president.
so, which one of your rhetoric laced citations are you going with? while you post opinion and editorial, Galt and I have used facts and actions taken by Reagan to show what, in fact, Reagan did and said in the cause to fight AIDS. you have nothing to add but to say nanny nanny boo boo.
i have already explained my position on your "facts". to be honest ,i didn tknow you were even part of this discussion. i was talking to galt. stick to betraying your friends and riding on the posting coat tails of others. leave the debating to your betters.
"partisan statistics"? you fucking imbecile. I quoted the CDC and government numbers you boob. Holy shit.
Quote: I quoted the CDC and government numbers you boob
cause the government numbers generated by the sitting government are never partisan, never.
also those numbers are misleading as evidence because if you look into the real way that money was spent you will realize what a complete dope you sound like.
AIDS kills only gays, so its ok.
And other minority's who like to fuck like animals too.
OK, Arpi, why don't you then cite how the money was spent? You make these claims that are totally baseless. Yet, Michael Moore tells you that Bush ignored AIDS so it must be so. Don't ever question anything.
Yes, CDC and audited government statistics are unreliable, yet your unsubstantiated, and unaccredited source that you copied and pasted from is much honorable, and the people who wrote that I'm sure have no political agenda they are pushing.
Please, leave the debating to people who actually know how to do so.
Hopefully, for your side of the argument, Sir O will come in and debate like an intelligent and rational person, so you can latch on and say "see I told you so", pretending that you have a clue what either of us are talking about.
Galt Wrote:OK, Arpi, why don't you then cite how the money was spent? You make these claims that are totally baseless. Yet, Michael Moore tells you that Bush ignored AIDS so it must be so. Don't ever question anything.
Yes, CDC and audited government statistics are unreliable, yet your unsubstantiated, and unaccredited source that you copied and pasted from is much honorable, and the people who wrote that I'm sure have no political agenda they are pushing.
Please, leave the debating to people who actually know how to do so.
you have the temerity to attack my debating style when all you have done is spout false statistics as the basis for your argument. you claim that my sources are all partisan when it is you who have merely touted the same old bullshit that the reagan elite have been saying for years.. except for the religious right and the reagan apologists there is not a soul on the planet who would back your side of the argument. stop trying to impress your daddy by parroting the propaganda that he has fallen victim to and learn how to do some real research and think for yourself before you question my ability to process information.
as for my sources i pasted those articles not as statisical sources but as illustrations of my opinion on the matter. unlike you, i dont paste misleading statistics and then instantly claim victory in an argument that you clearly are incredibly ignorant about.
i find it astounding that someone who seems as moderately intelligent as you like to think you are could so vehemently back an argument that even some reagan people acknowledge is false. learn a little something about government and then get back to me. until then keep sucking at stockmans tit for your info.
damn what the hell happened to this place in my absince?
This just baffling. This is the exact same thing as what happened with the Toronto Hottie argument about common law in Canada.
It's like trying to reason with a door. How can you cling to the hope that my statistics are "false". They are from the CDC. They are from the US Government. If those numbers aren't true, then what could possibly be?
It is a fact. It is black and white. Either the government spent that money, or they did not. There is no gray area. If they spent the money, doubled every single year for a decade, how could one possibly say that they "ignored" the problem.
How can you possibly just willfully ignore statistics that disprove your baseless opinion?
Baker Wrote:damn what the hell happened to this place in my absince?
good job, you are still a fat incoherent retard :thumbs-up:
From what I gather, Arpi makes lots of money, and is well informed on all subjects because he reads, compares facts, and formulates opinions.
But, he's the only person in the world who does this, everyone else in the country is poor and has no way of learning about such things, and so everyone else needs the government to tell them about AIDS, even though he will come out and say he does not trust the government to tell him everything.
Quote:1 million aborted fetuses (fetusi?)
second declension noun... fetus, feti, feto, fetum, feto...feti, fetorum, fetis, fetos, fetis