There is CURE FOR AIDS!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
camukuhi said:
:( Why become a physician with the view that diseases are a viable means of population control?Maybe politics may be a better carreer choice :idea: ?Then you may advocate for war as a means of population control! :mad:

Agree...

Members don't see this ad.
 
icecream4me said:
Not that I'm not a proponent of curing AIDS but...

A doctor at my hospital gave a seminar once on population control in the world, and stated that once a cure for AIDS is definite, the world is not necessarily equipped nor able to sustain the sudden increase in survival rates (in addition to the normal logarithmic growth of the population).

Just some food for thought :)

So why look for a cure for cancer? Better yet, why encourage our patients to stop smoking???? Can you imagine the devastation of a rapid decrease in mortality from the decline of lung cancer & COPD? Since the average life expectancy of a smoker is approx. 20 years shorter (early 60's) than a non-smoker (late 70's), our government would have to start paying out a hell of a lot more social security. Kind of a problem, huh? Maybe we should just let them all die!!! But wait... then what would I have done during my internal medicine rotation???

Just some food for thought...
 
waterski232002 said:
So why look for a cure for cancer? Better yet, why encourage our patients to stop smoking???? Can you imagine the devastation of a rapid decrease in mortality from the decline of lung cancer & COPD? Since the average life expectancy of a smoker is approx. 20 years shorter (early 60's) than a non-smoker (late 70's), our government would have to start paying out a hell of a lot more social security. Kind of a problem, huh? Maybe we should just let them all die!!! But wait... then what would I have done during my internal medicine rotation???

Just some food for thought...

Come on folks... The point of icecream4me's statement is not to argue that we shouldn't try to cure AIDS (or TB or Malaria, or any other disease that limits population growth in underdeveloped countries), but to encourage aspiring doctors to think about these global, VERY IMPORTANT issues. Sustainability IS a true concern. Right or wrong, infectious disease controls population growth- and has for thousands of years. What would happen to global population if all infectious disease were eliminated tomorrow? It is an interesting point to ponder. Not that we shouldn't strive to cure people, but we must understand and be prepared to address these complexities (kinda like going to war in Iraq without being fully prepared for the aftermath). The fact I acknowledge the complexity of infectious disease does NOT mean I consider AIDS or any other infectious disease a "viable" means of population control that we should strive to maintain. We should all take icecream4me's point for what it was intended... to encourage SDNers to examine the issue from a different angle.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
boilerbeast said:
Not to sound cruel-hearted...but I kind of agree. People HAVE to die somehow. It's competition and natural selection, etc--and that's life. We're an animal species (just like the dinosaurs) and we can become extinct, too. We hardly have the resources to adequately care for the people that are alive right now. When you can cure everything, it'll make it tougher for the population as a whole to survive in the long run.

this is the most awful thing i have heard in a long time! are you forgetting that people with AIDS and other diseases are SUFFERING? you are on these boards because you want to battle suffering correct? you know you cant save everyone, but you want to take away their pain right?

when your dad comes into a hospital with cancer X, and the doctor says you shouldnt do anything cause humans will be better off as race if we weed out people prone to mutations in tumor supressor genes, I wonder if you will hold on to your comments.

people are special, thats why medicine exists! if you take diseases and suffering and try to equate it to survival of the fittest, than you do not belong in medicine. not only is this perspective against the grain of the very virtue of medicine, it is incredibly socially ignorant. who do you think will get "population control?" what social classes and races will die to fit your model? yes, all the poor people who arent taught about risk factors and prevention of diseases.

under your thinking, humans will evolve into noninfectable, noncancerous, calculated, non emotional species, which sounds more like robots to me. give me my antibiotics, and interventions, and let me feel sad when people suffer and die. id rather have that then be a robot.

sorry im really a nice person and am not trying to jump down your throat, your comments just really hit a nerve. i hope you dont think about natural selection when some one you care about is dying.
 
dpill said:
Come on folks... The point of icecream4me's statement is not to argue that we shouldn't try to cure AIDS (or TB or Malaria, or any other disease that limits population growth in underdeveloped countries), but to encourage aspiring doctors to think about these global, VERY IMPORTANT issues. Sustainability IS a true concern. Right or wrong, infectious disease controls population growth- and has for thousands of years. What would happen to global population if all infectious disease were eliminated tomorrow? It is an interesting point to ponder. Not that we shouldn't strive to cure people, but we must understand and be prepared to address these complexities (kinda like going to war in Iraq without being fully prepared for the aftermath). The fact I acknowledge the complexity of infectious disease does NOT mean I consider AIDS or any other infectious disease a "viable" means of population control that we should strive to maintain. We should all take icecream4me's point for what it was intended... to encourage SDNers to examine the issue from a different angle.

So then, how many of you are going to do anything that affects global health? Very curious to know.
 
PookieGirl said:
So then, how many of you are going to do anything that affects global health? Very curious to know.

I am interested in infectious disease and I just spent a month studying infectious disease/ tropical medicine in Mumbai, India (with my MPH background; I haven't started med school yet). I have to admit, the situation seems a little overwhelming. Nevertheless, my experiences in India (good and bad) reinforced my desire to go into this field of medicine. I am not sure how much impact I personally will have on global health (or how much any one person can), but I am hopeful...
 
waterski232002 said:
So why look for a cure for cancer? Better yet, why encourage our patients to stop smoking???? Can you imagine the devastation of a rapid decrease in mortality from the decline of lung cancer & COPD? Since the average life expectancy of a smoker is approx. 20 years shorter (early 60's) than a non-smoker (late 70's), our government would have to start paying out a hell of a lot more social security. Kind of a problem, huh? Maybe we should just let them all die!!! But wait... then what would I have done during my internal medicine rotation???

Just some food for thought...

Holy hell, is it just applicant stress or are people just mean-spirited in here?
Hahaha, relax people!
 
skoaner said:
It's very unlikely that a dude would get AIDS from a chick, unless you're trying to tell us something...
It is true that the probability of HIV transmission from a woman to a man during vaginal intercourse is lower than via other methods (anywhere from 10-100x lower than receptive anal intercourse, for example). It is also true that men can and do contract HIV from women: the probability is not zero, and there are usually repeated events.

I don't think anyone disputes that safe sex is a good idea regardless.

See also:
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.3c3b&page=pr-04-02
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/hiv_transmission_0302.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n3_v34/ai_20444910/pg_6
 
MD Rapper said:
I figured... what do people do there for fun? Is there any diversity whatsoever?

Sometimes you people completely baffle me. As if you need diversity to have fun. Or as if a city with little diversity isn't fun. The Irish have more fun than people anywhere else I've been, and there ain't squat for diveristy there. I think I like it better the way it is, anyway. Very few places you go in the West have the distinct culture you see in Ireland. You may have some regional differences, which work better for "diversity," IMHO as well.

And let's bring up another point: the only reason you have diversity is because at some point, there was homogenity. It's the only real way a culture can make itself distinct from other cultures.

To be fair, you may have just been asking a question, but there was a loaded assumption in those questions. Or you may have been asking to distinct and separate questions, but again, loaded assumptions...

Anyway, there's always been a cure for AIDS. It seems people are either uneducated or consider the cost-benefit margin too small to consider it.

As for this vaccine, it sounds nice, but administering across Africa is a daunting challenge to say the least.
 
dpill said:
Come on folks... The point of icecream4me's statement is not to argue that we shouldn't try to cure AIDS (or TB or Malaria, or any other disease that limits population growth in underdeveloped countries), but to encourage aspiring doctors to think about these global, VERY IMPORTANT issues. Sustainability IS a true concern. Right or wrong, infectious disease controls population growth- and has for thousands of years. What would happen to global population if all infectious disease were eliminated tomorrow? It is an interesting point to ponder. Not that we shouldn't strive to cure people, but we must understand and be prepared to address these complexities (kinda like going to war in Iraq without being fully prepared for the aftermath). The fact I acknowledge the complexity of infectious disease does NOT mean I consider AIDS or any other infectious disease a "viable" means of population control that we should strive to maintain. We should all take icecream4me's point for what it was intended... to encourage SDNers to examine the issue from a different angle.

If all the infectious diseases were cured, then people would die of injuries & non-communicable diseases, such as cancers, heart disease, and other illnesses associated with the older populations in developed countries. In fact, developing countries have seen an increase in the cases of age associated disease as much more children are surviving childhood.
& i think the Malthusian growth model has been disproven, (or shown not to be accurate with current population growth trends) so no need to worry about the huge spike in population if infectious diseases are cured.
 
Dr Turninkoff said:
You need to do some reading on the link between health and development. While better health is a byproduct of development, development is also a byproduct of improved health. If AIDS were eliminated, many countries would have unprecedented economic growth, fueld by an increase in international investment. Right now, companies do not invest in countries with sick populations. Furthermore, it's not the population as a whole that has problems surviving; it's the poor population. If you are worried about too many of them not dying, there's still malaria, TB, malnutrition, and polio. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but you should try to have a little more sympathy for the human cause. If you want to do a little bit of reading on this, I recommend Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom, and Jeffery Sach's 2001 report on the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development.

Awesome, awesome, awesome response. Thanks for bringing up an *intelligent* point to the whole "keeping population growth in check" argument. If someone is so worried about rampant population growth, then why stop at promoting AIDS... I'm surprised those people that posted such nonsense about the "benefits" of AIDS wiping out whole populations aren't calling for Catholicism to be made illegal: after all, it promotes population growth too. Or maybe they would like to defend Pol Pot, after all he did manage to kill 1/3 of his country: score one for the population growth defenders.

Yeah, I've been to a lot of talks by docs/ professionals, and everyone has their own opinion (some even whackier). But THAT is the point: that "doctor" had no proof that populations would spiral out of control if diseases were cured. In fact, just looking at industrialized nations makes you realize that a LOT of correlational evidence points to the EXACT opposite happening: when the US started curbing its outbreaks and getting better education, families started having less children (part of it was that there was no longer a risk that 1/3 or so of your kids would die before puberty).

So, while I agree that you have to look at all sides of an issue, you also have to realize when someone is just handing you their unproven opinion.
 
we could always nuke africa. Or cut off food aid and let them starve. I mean, they are hardly people, right? they, in some ways, "cultivate" AIDS for the rest of the clean world and its their own damn fault they have it, right? Besides, why should they live, so their babies can have even more babies?!

I am sure that will satisfy the needs of some elitist conservatives.

I always wondered why it was the "conservatives" that feel their most racist, classist, sexist, and discriminating religious motives are actually acceptable.

BTW, helping Africa is a much more peaceful way of expressing patriotism by protecting the world than invading IRAQ, for you republicans out there.
"Liberals" already understand the value of human life, so its nothing for us to ponder.
 
medstyle said:
we could always nuke africa. Or cut off food aid and let them starve. I mean, they are hardly people, right? they, in some ways, "cultivate" AIDS for the rest of the clean world and its their own damn fault they have it, right? Besides, why should they live, so their babies can have even more babies?!

I am sure that will satisfy the needs of some elitist conservatives.

I always wondered why it was the "conservatives" that feel their most racist, classist, sexist, and discriminating religious motives are actually acceptable.

BTW, helping Africa is a much more peaceful way of expressing patriotism by protecting the world than invading IRAQ, for you republicans out there.
"Liberals" already understand the value of human life, so its nothing for us to ponder.

Why are you politicizing this and insulting people with conservative views? :confused: I am a conservative, and I never said nor do I hold any of the views you expressed. What is this "Liberals art holier than thou" crap?
Please do not make broad generalizations like that, I take offense to it. Why are you so angry at conservatives as a whole?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
medic170 said:
Why are you politicizing this and insulting people with conservative views? :confused: I am a conservative, and I never said nor do I hold any of the views you expressed. What is this "Liberals art holier than thou" crap?
Please do not make broad generalizations like that, I take offense to it. Why are you so angry at conservatives as a whole?


Does it not crack you up how conservatives are somehow both elitists and hicks at the same time?

I mean, let's see....the bastion of conservativism are the southeast and the far west. Yet we hear terms like "fly-over states" and backwards v. the oh so progressive centers of civilization in the northeast.

Somehow conservatives are evil, yet if you look at charitable donations, the most charitable states are all red states...Mississippi, North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee...

New York is the most charitable northern state bringing it home at #25. The lovely state of Massachusetts grips its pursestrings with a tight fist at #46.

Sorry, the whole conservative-elitist-disdain for human life connection just doesn't hold water.
 
freaker said:
Does it not crack you up how conservatives are somehow both elitists and hicks at the same time?

I mean, let's see....the bastion of conservativism are the southeast and the far west. Yet we hear terms like "fly-over states" and backwards v. the oh so progressive centers of civilization in the northeast.

Somehow conservatives are evil, yet if you look at charitable donations, the most charitable states are all red states...Mississippi, North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee...

New York is the most charitable northern state bringing it home at #25. The lovely state of Massachusetts grips its pursestrings with a tight fist at #46.

Sorry, the whole conservative-elitist connection just doesn't hold water.

Yeah, just like all conservatives are rich, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and do not care about poor people. Oh, wait, I am a conservative and I grew up poor, and my current income is less than $18000. I put myself through college and am borrowing money out my arse for undergrad and med school. But all conservatives are rich snobs and nothing of what it is like to be of a low SES.
 
medic170 said:
Why are you politicizing this and insulting people with conservative views? :confused: I am a conservative, and I never said nor do I hold any of the views you expressed. What is this "Liberals art holier than thou" crap?
Please do not make broad generalizations like that, I take offense to it. Why are you so angry at conservatives as a whole?


because most conservatives believe in owning guns, because "thas the way 'Merica was made", even though its been 300 years, guns can't defeat an army anymore, many other things from that have been rectified (women's rights, human rights).

I am against conservatives of this era because:

-they believe in keeping guns legal despite the fact they 99.9% are used for murder and not protection

-they constantly say evolution does not exist, yet the evidence is clear and the benefits from using evolution for drug research are clearly apparent. Don't bite the hand that feeds u. The next time you can derive how to make penicillin from the ten commandments, i'll be in church on sunday. if you don't believe in evolution, stop taking satan's pills too.

-they believe in ignoring problems that we all have to live with by saying no to abortion, teen pregnancy, and so forth while at the same time discouraging proper sex education, welfare to single mothers, and access to pregrancy prevention. Newsflash: people have sex and enjoy it, so if you don't believe its morally wrong to enjoy your body, you should be able to benefit from some 50-100 year old advances in planned parenting. You have to accept that some people will want to do these things so, since we are a nation, we should find a way to approach the problem, not make a child a lifelong "i told you so".

-the basis of most conservative voting is always some inherent racist, sexist, or classist agenda. most whites who are republican do not like blacks, i know this, i went ot an ivy, people talk to me openly because i look white. I know the deal, its no big secret. its fine, be racist, be classist, whatever, but at least admit it.

-they believe patriotism is war, not helping the poor, healing the sick, or helping others in need. including those in OUR OWN COUNTRY.

- the irony of the past election was that the people that needed kerry most didn't vote for him. I loved watching michael moore thank the republicans on Leno for voting, because he said "i have alot more to gain from Bush being in office than any of you". Its sad when the poor protect the money elite because they don't believe in a few issues, like gay marriage. They should outlaw divorce too then, if the sanctity of marriage is a concern.

-what good comes of war again? revenge? i thought that was illegal.

Conservatives have forgotten what the principles of this country. America was always a progressive prace. Only now, people want to take steps back. I used to stand behind our president and believe it was every person's responisibilty to do so. But when our president champions Evangelists (who ignore the validity of evolution while hippocritically benefiting from all of its gains) and xenophobes (Wichita will never need to fear terrorists), I find that disappointing and manipulative. Abortion will still be legal, and evolution will still be in the schools, so whats the point of voting? So you can send ur kids to war?

I wish Kerry said he was against gay marriages and abortion too, if only to win the election. Its not like anything would change.

I have only to gain financially because of the republicans and conservatives. It doesn't affect me if a 100 or a 1,000,000 black, spanish, and redneck boys die overseas. You can kill a 10,000,000 if you want, i won't know even one. But the point is, i know its wrong and i am against it. And you know what? I dont feel any safer or less safe than before.

I want to be a doctor. I want to "save the world" even though we can't. I'll keep throwing starfish back into the ocean because that's my callling. If everyone cared about others half as much as me, the world would be a better place. Buts its always safer to do whats only best for you, right?

As we rape the world of its natural resources disproportionately, we could at least throw a bone or two the countries that suffer from our wealth the most. Curing AIDS won't save the world, but its a start. Its certainly better to drop prescriptions than munitions, right?
 
where are you donating money to? Churches and religious institutions, right? That is self serving. If that money was going to Africa i'd call you selfless. Sure some money finds its way to those starving kids, but most of it goes into building and maintaining churches. I konw, i see them popping up everwhere these days.

I am not against religion, btw, but just because you donate money it doesn't make you a matyr. My parents donated lots of money, but i don't count that as charity because its for self serving causes, i feel.

freaker said:
Does it not crack you up how conservatives are somehow both elitists and hicks at the same time?

I mean, let's see....the bastion of conservativism are the southeast and the far west. Yet we hear terms like "fly-over states" and backwards v. the oh so progressive centers of civilization in the northeast.

Somehow conservatives are evil, yet if you look at charitable donations, the most charitable states are all red states...Mississippi, North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee...

New York is the most charitable northern state bringing it home at #25. The lovely state of Massachusetts grips its pursestrings with a tight fist at #46.

Sorry, the whole conservative-elitist-disdain for human life connection just doesn't hold water.
 
medstyle said:
because most conservatives believe in owning guns, because "thas the way 'Merica was made", even though its been 300 years, guns can't defeat an army anymore, many other things from that have been rectified (women's rights, human rights).
I am against conservatives of this era because:
-they believe in keeping guns legal despite the fact they 99.9% are used for murder and not protection
-they believe in ignoring problems that we all have to live with by saying no to abortion, teen pregnancy, and so forth while at the same time discouraging proper sex education, welfare to single mothers, and access to pregrancy prevention. Newsflash: people have sex and enjoy it, so if you don't believe its morally wrong to enjoy your body, you should be able to benefit from some 50-100 year old advances in planned parenting. You have to accept that some people will want to do these things so, since we are a nation, we should find a way to approach the problem, not make a child a lifelong "i told you so".
-the basis of most conservative voting is always some inherent racist, sexist, or classist agenda. most whites who are republican do not like blacks, i know this, i went ot an ivy, people talk to me openly because i look white. I know the deal, its no big secret. its fine, be racist, be classist, whatever, but at least admit it.
--what good comes of war again? revenge? i thought that was illegal.
Conservatives have forgotten what the principles of this country. America was always a progressive prace. Only now, people want to take steps back. I used to stand behind our president and believe it was every person's responisibilty to do so. But when our president champions Evangelists (who ignore the validity of evolution while hippocritically benefiting from all of its gains) and xenophobes (Wichita will never need to fear terrorists), I find that disappointing and manipulative. Abortion will still be legal, and evolution will still be in the schools, so whats the point of voting? So you can send ur kids to war?
I wish Kerry said he was against gay marriages and abortion too, if only to win the election. Its not like anything would change.

I have only to gain financially because of the republicans and conservatives. It doesn't affect me if a 100 or a 1,000,000 black, spanish, and redneck boys die overseas. You can kill a 10,000,000 if you want, i won't know even one. But the point is, i know its wrong and i am against it. And you know what? I dont feel any safer or less safe than before.

I want to be a doctor. I want to "save the world" even though we can't. I'll keep throwing starfish back into the ocean because that's my callling. If everyone cared about others half as much as me, the world would be a better place. Buts its always safer to do whats only best for you, right?

As we rape the world of its natural resources disproportionately, we could at least throw a bone or two the countries that suffer from our wealth the most. Curing AIDS won't save the world, but its a start. Its certainly better to drop prescriptions than munitions, right?

I don't mean this as an insult, but you are very ignorant and illogical to generalize your jaded views to all conservatives. Also, you are free to disagree with anyone's views, but it does NOT make you right. You don't see me criticizing Liberals in general. I disagree with them most of the time, but I think it is essential to have different points of view.

I will answer a few of your points:

"even though its been 300 years, guns can't defeat an army anymore"
--Uh, America is not 300 years old, it is 228 years old. Also, if guns do not win wars, what does? What is wrong with believing in owning guns. Our Founders thought it was important.

"they believe patriotism is war, not helping the poor, healing the sick, or helping others in need. including those in OUR OWN" COUNTRY.
--Conservatives do just as much to help the indigent as liberals. Prove to me that we don't! We believe more, though, in helping them get educated so they can help themselves instead of giving handouts for long periods!

"they believe in keeping guns legal despite the fact they 99.9% are used for murder and not protection"

--You made up this statistic, and made up statistics are worthless and it only goes to show you are closed minded and will say anything to further your view.

"what good comes of war again?"
Uh, security and FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!! Duh!

"revenge? i thought that was illegal."
I don't know if there is any specific law against revenge itself, but regardless, when did we go to war for revenge. Defense, freedom, protection of interests, hell even manifest destiny(A very questionalble war motive under a DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL President Polk), but never revenge that I know of. The morality of some of our wars may be in question, but i do not ever remember going to war for revenge. Which war was this?

"they constantly say evolution does not exist, yet the evidence is clear and the benefits from using evolution for drug research are clearly apparent."
--The evidence in clear for microevolution, but there is NOT clear and complete evindence for Darwinian macroevolution. That is why it is still cosidered a theory rather than a fact. Some parts are proven, but overrall the theory has yet to be completely proven. Besides, "they" have varying views from complete intelligent design to, gasp..., complete evolutionism..yes there are conservatives who believe in it.

"they believe in ignoring problems that we all have to live with by saying no to abortion, teen pregnancy, and so forth while at the same time discouraging proper sex education, welfare to single mothers, and access to pregrancy prevention. Newsflash: people have sex and enjoy it, so if you don't believe its morally wrong to enjoy your body, you should be able to benefit from some 50-100 year old advances in planned parenting. You have to accept that some people will want to do these things so, since we are a nation, we should find a way to approach the problem, not make a child a lifelong "i told you so".
--1. Who are you to say what "proper" sex edication is. Most conservatives i know only want abstinence to be INCLUDED in the curriculum with condoms ect. What is wrong with that?
--2. Where do you get that all conservatives are against welfare for single mothers? All the ones I know just believe more should be spent on assisting these folks with education so they can provide for themselves rather than just handing them a check for getting pregnant.
--3. We do not ignore the problems, but we do have a different apporach to them than Liberals. At least half the people in Americal agree with some of them, so who are you to say that your views are the best and most correct ones to hold. Why can't we disagree productivly.

"the basis of most conservative voting is always some inherent racist, sexist, or classist agenda. most whites who are republican do not like blacks, i know this, i went ot an ivy, people talk to me openly because i look white. I know the deal, its no big secret. its fine, be racist, be classist, whatever, but at least admit it. "
-- Once again, you are just making stuff up. How can you possibly know and say that we all vote on racist or classist lines? Because you had a skeewed experience at an ivy school. How can you possibly know and say that most white republicans do not like black people. that is a totally assinine generalization that you have NO basis to make.

"Conservatives have forgotten what the principles of this country. America was always a progressive prace. Only now, people want to take steps back. I used to stand behind our president and believe it was every person's responisibilty to do so. But when our president champions Evangelists (who ignore the validity of evolution while hippocritically benefiting from all of its gains) and xenophobes (Wichita will never need to fear terrorists), I find that disappointing and manipulative. Abortion will still be legal, and evolution will still be in the schools, so whats the point of voting? So you can send ur kids to war?
--I believe that conservatives are upholding the ideals of the country..property, rights, and limited government.

"I wish Kerry said he was against gay marriages and abortion too, if only to win the election. Its not like anything would change"
--So you hate conservatives so much you would rather have a Liberal lie to win?

"Its sad when the poor protect the money elite"
--Again, how, as a conservative, am I the money elite when I am POOR!

"If everyone cared about others half as much as me, the world would be a better place. Buts its always safer to do whats only best for you, right?"
--You really do think you are better and more moral than everybody else, don't you?

"As we rape the world of its natural resources disproportionately, we could at least throw a bone or two the countries that suffer from our wealth the most. Curing AIDS won't save the world, but its a start. Its certainly better to drop prescriptions than munitions, right"
--Rape the world, gimme a break. Anyway, I do agree with you that curing AIDS would be a wonderful thing. I never said it wasn't. Munitions are needed for freedom though, so I think there is a need for both prescriptions and munitions.

From now on, if you are going to make a claim, back it up with a meaningful and researched statistic or report. Otherwise, it is nothing but ignorant rhetoric. Most of your claims are just that. Check Mate!
 
medstyle said:
where are you donating money to? Churches and religious institutions, right? That is self serving. If that money was going to Africa i'd call you selfless. Sure some money finds its way to those starving kids, but most of it goes into building and maintaining churches. I konw, i see them popping up everwhere these days.

I am not against religion, btw, but just because you donate money it doesn't make you a matyr. My parents donated lots of money, but i don't count that as charity because its for self serving causes, i feel.

Well, I pay taxes, and conservatives control the White House and congress, and the US continues to give millions in aid to countries in need, so i guesssome money is going to Africa.

Again, I see your holier than thou attitude coming out. Because we donate to a church, it does not count as charity, even though these organizations help thousands of indigent people? Also, you again are making stuff up by saying that most of the money does not go to the indigent. Where do you get that from?

From now on, if you are going to make a claim, back it up with a meaningful and researched statistic or report. otherwise, it is nothing but ignorant rhetoric.
 
Liberal liberal whining. The fact of the matter is that America has its standing in the world today because of Conservatism. You may say that our "standing" consists of the rest of the world's distaste for America but you cannot argue our influence and power...American culture dominates far beyond any other...and President Bush, however much despised, is still the single most influential and powerful man in the world...without question.

America's quality of life is based on American arms -- the production efforts during World War II literally made America an economic superpower and the military - industrial complex post-World War II literally protected that status. How liberal is an arms race?

Africa is facing several serious crisises which its citizens are prepetuating internally. First and foremost is AIDs which in many of these countries is a complete Taboo. Patients come into the clinic with pneumonia...well yes, you have pneumonia but thats because you have AIDs. They deny it though, continue there life as they didn't...spread it...because to admit it is to be cast out. Or how about the food situation in many parts of Africa? It is ridiculous to imagine sub-saharan Africa does not have the arriable land to feed itself. Absolutely ridiculous to imagine that. However, corrupt politics holds up food or siezes it for other uses or war destroys farmland. Take Somalia where not only food aid but actual crops were used by warlords as weapons against citizens loyal to their oponents. These are all internal conflicts (which can't even be tied to former Western colonization)...which until they are able to overcome renders a good chunck of financial assistance futile. So maybe it shouldn't be sent in the first place...
 
icecream4me said:
Not that I'm not a proponent of curing AIDS but...

A doctor at my hospital gave a seminar once on population control in the world, and stated that once a cure for AIDS is definite, the world is not necessarily equipped nor able to sustain the sudden increase in survival rates (in addition to the normal logarithmic growth of the population).

Just some food for thought :)

Uh yeah. Lack of resources does just as fine of a job controlling population as aids would. Starvation generally takes a lot less time to kill you than HIV with the subsequent AIDS.
 
!dr_nick! said:
Uh yeah. Lack of resources does just as fine of a job controlling population as aids would. Starvation generally takes a lot less time to kill you than HIV with the subsequent AIDS.

No one said the two were mutually exclusive...
The argument merely is...sometimes there is an ecological silver lining to terrible events.
 
you can't fight a war with only guns anymore. In 1776, guns helped us beat an oppressive goverment. In 2004, guns kill children, men, and women. To fight the goverment, in the case of oppression, we need tanks, planes, and bombs. So guns are worthless in our fight for freedom, but they certainly help commit nearly all homicides and murders.

You're right, i made up 99.9%. But isn't 90% too much (a number we both know is very conservative). What else do people murder with? Every other country has murder rates in the hundreds, our are in the ten thousands. Why? We watch the same tv, same video games, its only access to guns with is strikingly different. What do you get with people owning guys? Are you more scared of some skinny iraqi kid 10000 miles away, or the black guy who has no job, no foreseeable future, and he's looking for a way to get some money? I am scared of the black guy, who is being screwed by society and now has only a few options left. You want to take guns out of the hands of youth? Then you have to take them out of everyone's hands, period.

We need munitions to fight for freedom. WWII was a just war. But vietnam was not and neither is this war. We are not any "free-er" or less free than we were on 9/10/2001.

Evolution exists. Why can you trace a protein from a bacterium all the way up to a human through the progression of organisms? It could be a master creater maniupulating every little molecule in the universe, or it could just be the sensible alternative. Besides, as modest mouse says, "who'd want to be such a control freak". how come our bones have a clear progression from organism? Why do we share genes with frogs, with slight variation, of course, as they passed from one organism to the next?

Anyway, its ok, i know how racism and religious freaks abound in the US. Its cool. I don't agree with you, in fact I sick of all of you, but there's nothing i can do about it. What can i say, i am into being fair and logical. And i care, even if i am not being hurt by your war, or being shot at by your guns, or being discriminated at by your laws.

Just because i am winning at your game, it does not mean i agree with the rules. jesus was liberal, the founding fathers were liberal, but to emulate them you go back in time? The founding fathers made mistakes, they accepted things that we could clearly not do today. However, they were always pushing for others to be free, to the best they could comprehend at the time. During their time, women didn't have the same rights as men. Now they do. Society was supposed to fall apart, but it didn't. Same with slaves being free. Giving people the right to exist in whatever way they choose is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt you. Thats what conservatives will NEVER get, whether they are crucifying YOUR god or shooting at the other man.

Everyone has the right to be free and live without oppression. I wish everyone believed that we have the responsibility to help others too. We're lucky to be in this country, but sometimes we have to realize that our fortune should sometimes manifest itself into charity, not fingerpointing.
 
USCTex said:
Liberal liberal whining. The fact of the matter is that America has its standing in the world today because of Conservatism. You may say that our "standing" consists of the rest of the world's distaste for America but you cannot argue our influence and power...American culture dominates far beyond any other...and President Bush, however much despised, is still the single most influential and powerful man in the world...without question.

America's quality of life is based on American arms -- the production efforts during World War II literally made America an economic superpower and the military - industrial complex post-World War II literally protected that status. How liberal is an arms race?

Africa is facing several serious crisises which its citizens are prepetuating internally. First and foremost is AIDs which in many of these countries is a complete Taboo. Patients come into the clinic with pneumonia...well yes, you have pneumonia but thats because you have AIDs. They deny it though, continue there life as they didn't...spread it...because to admit it is to be cast out. Or how about the food situation in many parts of Africa? It is ridiculous to imagine sub-saharan Africa does not have the arriable land to feed itself. Absolutely ridiculous to imagine that. However, corrupt politics holds up food or siezes it for other uses or war destroys farmland. Take Somalia where not only food aid but actual crops were used by warlords as weapons against citizens loyal to their oponents. These are all internal conflicts (which can't even be tied to former Western colonization)...which until they are able to overcome renders a good chunck of financial assistance futile. So maybe it shouldn't be sent in the first place...


conservatism didn't build this country. We fought WWII out of need. We had an arms race with the USSR out of need. I am for fighting when the fight is just. I am not a crazy liberal, i know we need military. But not EVERY SINGLE WAR is just.

Don't send money to africa. Send troops to protect and restore. Wait, there is no oil there. Forget it.

Why are africans suffering so? Could we do anything to help at all? Or is it, because they are black, and therefore flawed, they cannot be saved?

If we can make a bomb that can destroy half of the earth, if we cna make a satellite that can see a golfball from 80 miles away, we can find a way to feed the poor and help the sick.

Of course, politicians would do it, if there was something in it for them. But there isn't. But why aren't there votes to help our OWN country at least? Why do we vote to fight others? What did we get? What did THEY get? Who won anything? Bush and Co. got their oil, the american people got saddam, and iraq has gotten more strife. Great solution.
 
USCTex said:
No one said the two were mutually exclusive...
The argument merely is...sometimes there is an ecological silver lining to terrible events.

new york was totally overpopulated before 9/11, wasn't it?

Oh wait, its different because they're american.
 
medstyle said:
i am into being fair and logical.

:laugh: :laugh:

I am done trying to have a sensible and logical debate with a closed minded illogical, and irrational person. You failed to prove anything you said (BTW the founders were VERY conservative, not liberal..take a history class).

You win, all of us conservatives are bad and we should live exactly the way you say. We all hate Black people and other minorities, we are all rich, we only care about making more money for ourselves, we hate poor people and non-Christains, we love to put guns in the hands of murderers, and we are willing to go to war for no good reason at all.

I am a PROUD member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

I love debates with smart Liberals (like Joe Lieberman) because it provides great info from both sides and promotes cohesivness among Americans, but I give up trying to debate rhetoric spouting, truth stretching, irrational liberals (like Mikey Moore, Al Franken, and medstyle). Some people you just can't reach!
 
medic170 said:
:laugh: :laugh:

I am done trying to have a sensible and logical debate with a closed minded illogical, and irrational person. You failed to prove anything you said (BTW the founders were VERY conservative, not liberal..take a history class).

You win, all of us conservatives are bad and we should live exactly the way you say. We all hate Black people and other minorities, we are all rich, we only care about making more money for ourselves, we hate poor people and non-Christains, we love to put guns in the hands of murderers, and we are willing to go to war for no good reason at all.

I am a PROUD member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

I love debates with smart Liberals (like Joe Lieberman) because it provides great info from both sides and promotes cohesivness among Americans, but I give up trying to debate rhetoric spouting, truth stretching, irrational liberals (like Mikey Moore, Al Franken, and medstyle). Some people you just can't reach!


i never said most conservatives are rich. Just that the rich benefit from the voting the most. I think most conservatives are afraid of what's different from what they are used to, even if things would be better.

Our founding fathers were liberal, according to the british. In fact, they were so hated they went packing overseas.

I never said YOU put guns into the hands of murders. But you make them available, and thats the problem. Is it ok if you keep drugs or porn in your home, even if you don't give them to your children and you tell them its bad?

Sure, michael moore is ecentric and sometimes very annoying, but show me a conservative film where the benefits of guns and having a republican goverment are depicted.

I want to hear both sides, i just haven't heard anything good from republicans yet. However, i know there there are problems with both parties, as a bipartisan party is ******ed. Democrats should not be the opposite of republicans, or vice versa. They should differ in places of course, but it shouldn't be so polarized.

I guess all i can say until gives me some real evidence why guns are good, when half the country and the rest of the world think they are not, i think its a stupid stance.
 
medstyle said:
I guess all i can say until gives me some real evidence why guns are good, when half the country and the rest of the world think they are not, i think its a stupid stance.

Why should I have to give any evidence to back up any claims when you don't. Are conservatives held to a higher standard now than you are held to for some reason? You did not provide proof for any of your statements.

Nevermind, like I said, I am done here. there is obviously no talking to you.
 
medic170 said:
Why should I have to give any evidence to back up any claims when you don't. Are conservatives held to a higher standard now than you are held to for some reason? You did not provide proof for any of your statements.

Nevermind, like I said, I am done here. there is obviously no talking to you.

tell me, what evidence do you want? i'll get it for you, ok? really.

I want evidence for:

why are guns good?
why is the war in iraq good?
how does the republican party help a typical american and a poor american?

We don't need to discuss evolution, because i've already read the arguments ("appearnce of age theory"- earth is like 10000years old, god just makes it look older for fun) and i am not impressed.

What evidence do you want from me? I'll get it, ok? I am not doing anything for christmas, unless pizza hut is open, haha.
 
How the hell did this turn into a conservative vs liberal thread. Stop it!!!
 
medstyle said:
conservatism didn't build this country. We fought WWII out of need. We had an arms race with the USSR out of need. I am for fighting when the fight is just. I am not a crazy liberal, i know we need military. But not EVERY SINGLE WAR is just.

Don't send money to africa. Send troops to protect and restore. Wait, there is no oil there. Forget it.

Why are africans suffering so? Could we do anything to help at all? Or is it, because they are black, and therefore flawed, they cannot be saved?

If we can make a bomb that can destroy half of the earth, if we cna make a satellite that can see a golfball from 80 miles away, we can find a way to feed the poor and help the sick.

Of course, politicians would do it, if there was something in it for them. But there isn't. But why aren't there votes to help our OWN country at least? Why do we vote to fight others? What did we get? What did THEY get? Who won anything? Bush and Co. got their oil, the american people got saddam, and iraq has gotten more strife. Great solution.

You're not making an argument here...you're just stating an opinion. We don't go to feed to hungry in Africa becasue the sad but VERY JUST fact is that I have the money and there is an inalienable right to property. In fact such a right according to some philosophers is inherently tied to my right of existence (i.e. I am able to defend and maintain my right to existence only if I have a right to property in order to do that).

Here's the flaw -- you are saying that some Africans right to life trumps my right to property so the American government should pay for food and services in Africa with my money which they took as taxes. You cannot make this argument however from a solely philosophical side because it becomes a slippery slope. Then everyone who could be saved with money HAS TO BE. It is the virtual complete redistribution of wealth you end up calling for. And as we've seen Communism is not pragmatically viable in any sense. People have to be secure in their right to property to drive innovation, to drive economies, etc. The American government has no political right to sieze my money as tax dollars and spend it on things that do not protect its citizens...

And Conservatism did make this country. If the industrialist in this country weren't able to "gouge" the government in selling arms (as many of them were accused of doing when the war ended) you diminish the incentive to build equiptment faster. They wanted a profit and they didn't want to share it. It is the drive...however detestable you find it...which has pushed the American economy since the 18th century! A complete right to property (while not specifically named in our country's documents) has driven our completely conservative and capitalistic economy to making America the place it is. It wasn't the New Deal that got us out of the Depression...it was the massive profit hungry titans of industry who started turning out equiptment for the effort of World War II. That is Conservatism.
 
I'm not saying that your hard earned dollars need to feed "some African", but I'd rather rather spend the trillions of dollars we spend on war on aid for other nations instead. We can maintain a kick ass armed force, but its doesn't need to be SOOOO big. And wars are expensive. The economy can make money whether they are making bombs or machines...you can buy alot of saws and hammers for the price of a cruise missiles, let alone the airplanes and helicopters and ships that we use. And if we helped people reconstruct, there would be alot less hatred towards the US (not that their hatred has any effect on us anyway).

The property you own once came from this earth. Sure, its yours now, to do as you please, according to US law. But in a worldwide perspective, somewhere, your consumption of any good (just like my consumption) hurts everyone in the world. So, we the Americans, who maintain a disprotionately higher standard of living, are cutting a bigger piece of the pie.

Is it so bad that some money, which you earned because you were blessed to be here, went to helping others, who are not blessed? Its not charity; its humane.

I am not against commerce, but i am against irresponsible commerce. There was no pollution tax before, and even now its not adequate. The regulations are not as strict as they could be. Just because it was ok for people to dump tons of ozone into the air 150 years ago it does not mean its ok now. We know better. If it thows a wrench into the industry, they'll survive...they always do.

Every time I wonder whats in my seafood or vegetable, i realize that someone is going to pay the price for alll of this, even if its not me.

What is a goverment for? The good of ALL people. If we all did what was good for the individual, we'd all suffer. Sometimes, you need a goverment to make sure we play fair. Its good for the individual to consume as much as possible and polute and break laws and whatever, but its bad for society. Its good for me if I steal money, piss wherever i feel like, and do whatever i want, but i doubt its good for anyone else. Thats why we need regulation.

Our current republican goverment has control, but is it in our best interest? Who's best interest is it for? Who is really going to gain from this iraq war? Who is gaining by not lowering prices of meds to africa? Its not me, and its not you, and its not 99% of the world. Its a few companies, who even with more regulation and responsibility, would still have more than enough incentive to remain in business.

Once again, i understand why people can be republican, but i don't understand why a middle class or poor person is. Hell, even my dad is republican to some extent, he voted for reagan and the 1st bush.

I understand voting for yourself. I understand voting for the poor. But voting for the rich when you are not rich yourself? That i don't understand.

I understand wanting to maintain civility. I understand preserving tradition. But i don't understand trying to do both with guns, which are clearly doing more harm than good.

I understant making medicine is expensive. I understand that drug companies will make a killing off of any discoveries they make, and that they deserve them. But I don't understand why we still can't give people who can't afford the medicine medicine anyway. Sure, it may not "sit well", but in this case the ends justifies the means.



USCTex said:
You're not making an argument here...you're just stating an opinion. We don't go to feed to hungry in Africa becasue the sad but VERY JUST fact is that I have the money and there is an inalienable right to property. In fact such a right according to some philosophers is inherently tied to my right of existence (i.e. I am able to defend and maintain my right to existence only if I have a right to property in order to do that).

Here's the flaw -- you are saying that some Africans right to life trumps my right to property so the American government should pay for food and services in Africa with my money which they took as taxes. You cannot make this argument however from a solely philosophical side because it becomes a slippery slope. Then everyone who could be saved with money HAS TO BE. It is the virtual complete redistribution of wealth you end up calling for. And as we've seen Communism is not pragmatically viable in any sense. People have to be secure in their right to property to drive innovation, to drive economies, etc. The American government has no political right to sieze my money as tax dollars and spend it on things that do not protect its citizens...

And Conservatism did make this country. If the industrialist in this country weren't able to "gouge" the government in selling arms (as many of them were accused of doing when the war ended) you diminish the incentive to build equiptment faster. They wanted a profit and they didn't want to share it. It is the drive...however detestable you find it...which has pushed the American economy since the 18th century! A complete right to property (while not specifically named in our country's documents) has driven our completely conservative and capitalistic economy to making America the place it is. It wasn't the New Deal that got us out of the Depression...it was the massive profit hungry titans of industry who started turning out equiptment for the effort of World War II. That is Conservatism.
 
btw, we will never save anyone. There was this anology once of medicine:

A native was on the beach. "I´m throwing these starfish back into the ocean. You see, it´s low tide right now and all of these starfish have been washed up onto the shore. If I don´t throw them back into the sea, they´ll die up here from lack of oxygen."

"I understand," his friend replied, "but there must be thousands of starfish on this beach. You can´t possibly get to all of them. There are simply too many. And don´t you realize this is probably happening on hundreds of beaches all up and down this coast? Can´t you see that you can´t possibly make a difference?"

The local native smiled, bent down and picked up yet another starfish, and as he threw it back into the sea, he replied, "Made a difference to that one."

Thats medicine. we can't save everyone, we can't stop everything. But we can always make a difference. The world can prosper too, you know. If we can build trillion dollar subs that can destroy this planet ten times over, we can certainly find a way to grow rice faster, or make bigger tomotoes, or whatever else we need.

If thats what the people want, of course.

Am i really so liberal? I don't like seeing gay guys kissing in the parking lot, or i'd never want a woman surgeon, and i think a girl on the football team is insane. I dont like people smoking pot, or listening to ganster rap, or even drinking at all. I don't like gay people marrying, i don't car if people die, wheter in the twin towers or in Iraq or africa. If you're stupid or poor, i would probably not want to hang out with you at all. If you are ugly, i don't want to be your friend. I think minorities getting AA is worse for the patient.

However, i know that everyone has prejudice, so as long as it doesn't hurt me, i am ok with it. So gay guys can kiss in the parking lot, i won't look. And she can play football, its not my broken leg. we can all be free an equal, because not everyone likes me either.

We should help because we can, plain and simple. It doesn't have to consume our lives, but we certainly should do something. Something is always better than nothing. If the goverment is needed to define what we should do, fine. Being fair is a pain in the ass, isn't it?
 
I agree that you should help others, but you also have to think about those closer to you. I mean all that aid the U.S. is giving to Africa, couldn't we also give it to the homeless on our streets here? Since when did the poverty of others in other nations take priority over the poverty of the people in your own country? Couldn't we use the aid we're giving to Africans to give insurance to every American? Couldn't the aid instead be used to guarantee that every American can afford a college education? (I mean instead of loans that leave students in debt, grants that give money to students) I believe in helping others, but I'd help the people next to me first before giving aid to people on a different continent. America has its own problems, its own people who are living in poverty. Do you think that the people living in rags on the streets want to live there? American problems should be solved first before going on to help other nations.
 
Aristotle said:
I agree that you should help others, but you also have to think about those closer to you. I mean all that aid the U.S. is giving to Africa, couldn't we also give it to the homeless on our streets here? Since when did the poverty of others in other nations take priority over the poverty of the people in your own country? Couldn't we use the aid we're giving to Africans to give insurance to every American? Couldn't the aid instead be used to guarantee that every American can afford a college education? (I mean instead of loans that leave students in debt, grants that give money to students) I believe in helping others, but I'd help the people next to me first before giving aid to people on a different continent. America has its own problems, its own people who are living in poverty. Do you think that the people living in rags on the streets want to live there? American problems should be solved first before going on to help other nations.

that's a good solution too. I agree, our money should go where it helps us the most. But with things like AIDS medication, most people who need it in the US will be able to get it, because it is a public health issue. I hope at some it will be universal in treatment here, like with vaccines.

But supplying african countries with the medicine won't be outlandishly expensive, so I think it is a good investment as well. Erradicating a contagious disease, whether smallpox or HIV, is an issue that affects ALL of us. It affects anyone who knows someone or is someone not has not exclusively had virgin to virgin sex. I believe there is enough money in the economy to fix healthcare, education, and maintain a strong armed force. However, as long as capitalism manipulates goverment and politicians recieve incentives for not getting the job done, our money will be tied up into red tape and wasted on ways to get the public to vote for them. Our goverment, now more than ever, is operating on the public's fear and not its needs. Unfortunately, our public is more scared of decades old pictures of burning flags then all the guns on the street, the prospect of an even worse economy, and the fact that 45 million people have little or no medical insurance.

Now that's scary.
 
medstyle said:
"Liberals" already understand the value of human life, so its nothing for us to ponder.

Of course! That's why you folks are so adamant in your support of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. In fact, about the only time you people seem to disagree with people dying is when they are convicted felons or foreign enemies of the state in a declared war.

Babies and the eldery - heck, that's fair game.

Nuts.
 
Haybrant said:
really the dumbest thing ive heard; this doc needs to be shipped to africa and give that speech to the people there; you should go with him for believing him....

Hey, over a month ago (November 18) you said:
" the dumbest thing i hear is that people into their research are zombies, introverted etc... If you are passionate about it and can communicate that you're good; People can confuse your introvertedness with playing life cool; so, listen to hip/hop music and watch mtv if you can and you'll learn what it means to chill and you wont have to change who you are to impress anyone...."

So, is what claim now beat what you said a month ago? :confused:
 
Old_Mil said:
Of course! That's why you folks are so adamant in your support of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. In fact, about the only time you people seem to disagree with people dying is when they are convicted felons or foreign enemies of the state in a declared war.

Babies and the eldery - heck, that's fair game.

Nuts.

who is supporting infanticide? calm down.

even "youth in asia" is an unnecessary low blow, as not many people support it or rally for it, and it effects a very small percentage of the population.

as for as abortion, no one is "for abortion". People are "for the right to choose". I don't think any woman uses abortion as birth control, but as a preventative measure for having an unwanted baby. I could go on and on about the problems of young women having babies they don't want, but an issue here that is greater is a woman's right to her own body.

I think its fine if someone doesn't want to have an abortion, as it conflicts with THEIR OWN relationship with god. However, for those of us who's only relationships are with family, friends, and incredibly cute japanese chicks, well, we don't really want to do what your god wants us to. If god wants YOU to go to church or sunday, or not curse, or give up any of the many things that make my life worth living, thats fine. But i am not. And any woman who's "relationship" with god allows her ABSOLUTE control over her body, more power to her.

Society has a negative stigma on nearly every aspect of sexuality, and thats fine. Its also fine if you think everything but unprotected sex between a married man and woman is fine. If you don't want CPR, fine. If you don't want to know the sex of your child, fine. If you're pregnant with a baby that has a trisomy and you still want to give it a shot, more power to you. But not everyone is ashamed or needs someone telling them what to do or not to do. If you're working on getting to heaven, that's awesome. Have fun there. But telling me, or my woman, what to do, when it has no negative effect on anyone but us? That's unfair.

Its possible for people to respect life by giving one control of their own life, while protecting the lives of others. Its not crazy to be against war and for "the right to choose". It seems crazy to me, however, to claim to value human life when it's not your right and devalue it through war, when once again it's not your right.
 
MWillie said:
How the hell did this turn into a conservative vs liberal thread. Stop it!!!


Ok, I wil gladly stop it, I am getting no where anyway, some people think their view is so superior that they are unwilling to listen to or consider anything else.
 
i am willing to listen, but i can't state my opinion? what valid point did you make?

someone said right to property should determine how money is spent. i understand that perspective, even if i disagree to some extent.

someone wanted to use tax money in america. i agree of course.

but i don't understand what a poor or middle class american gets from keeping medicine out of africa, having a war with iraq, or even keeping guns legal. no one has said anything substantial about those points, which are the crux of this discussion and in a large way, the political climate of this country.
 
Supernova said:
Hey, over a month ago (November 18) you said:
" the dumbest thing i hear is that people into their research are zombies, introverted etc... If you are passionate about it and can communicate that you're good; People can confuse your introvertedness with playing life cool; so, listen to hip/hop music and watch mtv if you can and you'll learn what it means to chill and you wont have to change who you are to impress anyone...."

So, is what claim now beat what you said a month ago? :confused:

Now I know you have something better to do with your time than to dig through a month's worth of a person's posts to find something that's barely relevant to this discussion.
 
The war against Iraq was waged in order to prevent a nation hostile to the U.S. from stopping the U.S. economy by withholding oil. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the world's oil is located in the Middle East and most countries there aren't exactly best friends with the U.S. The middle class American and poor American benefit from this because with the economy running, their jobs are still there, their income is still there, and they can continue to live their lives.

Medicine isn't being "kept out of Africa", any African can buy medicine, they just can't afford the price. You could ask why Americans aren't giving away medicine to Africans, but why would you needlessly have American taxpayers bear the additional burden of having to provide for the medicine of people millions of miles away? Older Americans are worried about providing medicine for themselves, why should they have to additionally worry about Africans?

As for guns, I think you are referring to the expiration of the gun ban on some semi-automatic weapons. According to some studies, the gun ban supposedly didn't affect the rate of murder and was therefore allowed to expire. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm) If you asking why all guns are legal, a little something called the U.S. Constitution has an amendment that gives all Americans the right to bear arms. A ban on all guns would infringe upon the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
 
Aristotle said:
The war against Iraq was waged in order to prevent a nation hostile to the U.S. from stopping the U.S. economy by withholding oil. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the world's oil is located in the Middle East and most countries there aren't exactly best friends with the U.S. The middle class American and poor American benefit from this because with the economy running, their jobs are still there, their income is still there, and they can continue to live their lives.

Medicine isn't being "kept out of Africa", any African can buy medicine, they just can't afford the price. You could ask why Americans aren't giving away medicine to Africans, but why would you needlessly have American taxpayers bear the additional burden of having to provide for the medicine of people millions of miles away? Older Americans are worried about providing medicine for themselves, why should they have to additionally worry about Africans?

As for guns, I think you are referring to the expiration of the gun ban on some semi-automatic weapons. According to some studies, the gun ban supposedly didn't affect the rate of murder and was therefore allowed to expire. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm) If you asking why all guns are legal, a little something called the U.S. Constitution has an amendment that gives all Americans the right to bear arms. A ban on all guns would infringe upon the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.


I see, the point of view represented here is that the need for oil is for the long term, and current economic stability (ensured by improving jobs for lower and middle income americans) is for the short term. It's true, i do see benefit for the US having control of oil in the middle east, but I feel that doing it under the guise of peace keeping is manipulative and inappropriate. I want the soldiers to know they are fighting to keep oil prices down, stimulate the finances of the wealthy elite in Bush's circle, and not to protect my freedom. HAD IRAQ LIMITED ACCESS TO OIL, then that would be a different case. But say a war is justified on presumption, that is irresponisible, especially when the stakes are not immediately dangerous. (For instance, if oil access was denied, we could simply force them to do so in a matter of weeks, while using our own stores in the meantime. That way, we would actually have reason to attack). There were no WWMD and everything else was jolly too, at least on this side of the atlantic. Bush needed votes, the people wanted a war, its not calc 4.

For medicine, I think spending a little money to save millions is always an investment. Our goverment wastes millions, using some to buy drugs at cost and distrubuting them wouldn't be such a bad idea. Might even stem some of the hatred others have for the US.

Finally, I don't care what the 230 year old 2nd amendment says. They can and do add amendments to constitution to suit the long term welfare of this country. Things do change, don't they? It's true, our country has benefited tremendously from the Bill of Rights, but when they were intiated, the only "person" with full rights was a white male. They fixed that, now its time to fix this. At that time period, a militia was somewhat of an army. Now, they tend to be nothing more than hate groups that play with guns on the weekend. Even if there are some out there that are not vestiges of "white power" groups, nothing good can come of a militia in THIS day and age.

Bottom line: nothing good comes from citizens having guns, so lets fix that. We're not being disloyal to the constitution, but we're honoring it in spirit, if not with literal vigor.

As I said before, I benefit from having a war mongering president. I like oil too. I like saving on my taxes. Hell, we all know the US could take over the world, i am somewhat of a war buff, i know what we can do if we wanted to. We could even do what Hitler never could, take over the world and live like kings. But i don't think we need to throw our weight around like that, especially when we're losing soldiers too. Every soldier who dies, on our side or theirs, is a person. Ever civilian who dies is a person. Nothing is going to bring back anyone who died, but revenge is cruel. And its illegal...if you killl my wife and I kill you, I am still going to be a murderer. I was brought up believing that two wrongs don't make a right, even if you want them to. Osama committed his wrong, now we are committing ours.

Of course, now its on their side to practice restraint...how likely is that? And so the cycle repeats...
 
Are you suggesting that the U.S. turn the other cheek to terrorists? Do wish for another 2,000 people to die just to avoid revenge. The reason the U.S. entered WWII was to take revenge for Pearl Harbor, yet no one says that revenge was inappropriate in that case. If someone does kill your wife, you still get your revenge because the murderer is excecuted still in some states, or imprisoned for life in other states. How would you feel if your neighbor killed your wife and then were still allowed to live right next to you? He greets you in the morning but your wife still can't, he gets up and eats, but your wife still can't; your wife can never enjoy life again, but with revenge you can make sure that her murderer will never enjoy life again either. I still don't understand your argument for medicine. The welfare of Americans should always take priority over the welfare of people of other nations. If other nations hate us for taking care of our citizens first then so be it. If you're in the hospital how would you feel if you were told that you cannot be treated because the money to treat you had been sent to some person who isn't even in America? Therefore I will not support the shipment of medicine to Africa unless every eldery American does not have to complain about Medicaid or Social Security anymore. The people suffering from AIDS in the U.S. don't get free medicine so why should Africans get free medicine? Shouldn't the welfare of your own countrymen concern you more than the welfare of other nations? I think its great that a cure for AIDS was found. It's the first step towards curing what were considered "incurable" diseases. But say you were a middle class or poor American suffering from AIDS and having to pay thousands of dollars for treatment, wouldn't you be pissed off if someone suggested sending that same medicine that leaves you in debt for free to other nations? Hopefully over time the cost of such a cure will be reduced as technology advances, and maybe medications that completely reverse diseases such as lung cancer will be found (medications usually only halt the spreading of the disease).
 
I'll keep my thoughts simple b/c I'm tired from reading...

1) We did the right thing by going in to Iraq. Unanimous vote on 1441 (we tried diplomatic way), defying agreed to cease fire arrangements, and everyone agreed that there should be serious consequences for non-compliance. Everyone thought he had wmd - everyone. UN ineffective then, and clearly ineffective now as 500K Rwandans cleansed away.

2) We should do everything in our power to prevent another 9/11 or WORSE. We're not taking any more risks. The cost is too high. When the next state-side attack comes (god forbid, but I think it is a matter of time), libs will be the first to look for conservatives to blame (and hope everyone forgets that they and their ACLU buddies are worried about harsh underwear on prisoners heads).

2.5) The biggest + which few mention is the statement we made by going into Iraq with our friends/allies w/o UN and support of some Europeans. We will do whatever it necessary, with whomever supports us, to protect our security interests, short term and long. Loonies are put on notice and given a birds-eye view of what our awesome military is capable of - ending entire political regimes. This is huge, imo.

3) The arab/muslim world is a threat (generally speaking here). Spreading freedom to a place where there is none is our answer to that threat in the larger context. If it holds, they'll replace fanaticism with sports and bar-b-ques - I know it. Their neighbors will say, "dude, iraqi's are hangin', we want that". Remember Cold War. If it doesn't, fine...we have to try. Easy for people to look back and say, see it didn't work. War is ugly, war in unpredictable. Straight from the lib playbook, keep blaming until something sticks (it didn't this election yr)

4) We freed 50+ million people b/w Afg and Iraq.

5) (realizing I'm spending too much time on this) I will never forget how libs (some) gave comfort to America's enemies leading up to the war and during the war. It may have been subtle, masked in your TV "news" reports, documentaries, protests, rhetoric, but I watched. I watched how u worked to portray this great country as an imperialist and our soldiers as murderers.

I'm done. God bless our troop and America.

And don't compare small pox with AIDS. HIV/AIDS infection is completely 100% preventable.
 
Aristotle said:
Are you suggesting that the U.S. turn the other cheek to terrorists? Do wish for another 2,000 people to die just to avoid revenge. The reason the U.S. entered WWII was to take revenge for Pearl Harbor, yet no one says that revenge was inappropriate in that case. If someone does kill your wife, you still get your revenge because the murderer is excecuted still in some states, or imprisoned for life in other states. How would you feel if your neighbor killed your wife and then were still allowed to live right next to you? He greets you in the morning but your wife still can't, he gets up and eats, but your wife still can't; your wife can never enjoy life again, but with revenge you can make sure that her murderer will never enjoy life again either. I still don't understand your argument for medicine. The welfare of Americans should always take priority over the welfare of people of other nations. If other nations hate us for taking care of our citizens first then so be it. If you're in the hospital how would you feel if you were told that you cannot be treated because the money to treat you had been sent to some person who isn't even in America? Therefore I will not support the shipment of medicine to Africa unless every eldery American does not have to complain about Medicaid or Social Security anymore. The people suffering from AIDS in the U.S. don't get free medicine so why should Africans get free medicine? Shouldn't the welfare of your own countrymen concern you more than the welfare of other nations? I think its great that a cure for AIDS was found. It's the first step towards curing what were considered "incurable" diseases. But say you were a middle class or poor American suffering from AIDS and having to pay thousands of dollars for treatment, wouldn't you be pissed off if someone suggested sending that same medicine that leaves you in debt for free to other nations? Hopefully over time the cost of such a cure will be reduced as technology advances, and maybe medications that completely reverse diseases such as lung cancer will be found (medications usually only halt the spreading of the disease).


uhh, iraq didn't attack us. WWII was different, as we were attacked by the armed forces of a country, not a few rogues who may have had some political freedom back home. the terrorists were from Al quaeda in afghanistan, not iraq. I know, its hard to tell and not worth figuring out because they are all brown.

And no, I am not scared it will happen again, they stole a plane, not launched a missile. With proper security, we can protect ourself from future attack without getting horribly offensive. The war in iraq did nothing to promote my security, as far as terrorism goes. Our boys are dying over there, but not for me. They can keep going too, i don't care. Its not me or my family. But if its your family, then you might question. But hey, if risking their life gives their life meaning....

I want the US to help our Social security crisis. Thats what kerry was going to work on. And education and healthcare. But Bush was for war, so you won! Good job! Remember kerry, who was for problems here before "securing" iraq? Republicans chose to go to war, not liberals. We were for fixing the United States of America. Bush was "security". we both agree we need to approach the problems at home first. I thought our problems were internal, like those i mentioned. Bush implied they were in iraq. Which makes more sense?

In any case, someone in africa would pay thousands for treatment, if they could. But since they don't have the money, and we have a cure, they shouldn't recieve it? In medicine, its usually the development of the pill that is expensive, not the actual manufacturing. For the countries that cannot finance the research, they could recieve medicine at the cost of production, while the richer 35% of the world pays the "normal" price for drugs. this way, the Americans win (who would never recieve medicine for that cheap, because without our money it wouldn't exist), the pharm companies win, because they make all the money they would have made originally, and african countries win, because they get medicine.

It's not fair...but don't the ends justify the means? The only person who "loses", is the guy who is paying alot of money for drugs. He can complain, but perhaps he should be greatful they exist. Without his money there would be no drugs. Does it matter?

Do you curse homeless people who get free food during the holidays while you have to pay for groceries?
 
flash said:
And don't compare small pox with AIDS. HIV/AIDS infection is completely 100% preventable.

lets not help anyone, ok? Single mothers? Screw em. If they can't afford healthcare, its their own damn fault. They shouldn't have been screwing around. Welfare? They are only bringing us down. I want my taxes to fund another Trillion dollar sub, i don't care if little Jimmy trailer trash, or Jamal the future "drive by king" gets pancakes or books. If their ***** mothers paid attention, maybe those little bastards wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have to fund their sorry little lives.

Social Security? How about Gertrude and Hank save their OWN money, like my daddy did, so they can provide for their old age. Poverty in old age is "completely, 100% preventable" if someone works hard and invests well. I mean, its possible for EVERYONE to beat the average, right? Right?

Healthcare? you gotta pay to play. I don't care what you have, you better be insured on you're own dime. Medicare and medicaid? We could use that money for...welll, soemthing better than this, right? If you're too poor to pay for it, you certainly don't deserve it.

Student loans that are subsidized? Who is paying for this? Better not be my father's taxes!? Who's fault that you're too poor to pay for you OWN education? You pay full price! Its not my fault your dad was drag racing El Camino's when my dad struggling to run his first business here.

Charity is fairness. AIDS is preventable, just like anything else. Pregnancy, injury, STD's, poverty are all preventable. People all have sex. we can educate, we can prevent, and then, even after all that, we can heal.

Is it really that sickening? Maybe this might appeal to you: What would jesus do?
 
BTW, I'm a minority, 1st gen, poor American from NYC and am also a part of the vast rt wing conspiracy.

Keep in mind that painting conservatives as "dumb hicks", "the rich", "racists", and "elitists" is part of a strategy (LOSING one, btw), to use class and race to win minds and election.

We don't "protect the rich", we believe in limited govt, private property, right to do what a person wants with it, at ALL levels of wealth.




Most felons are Democrats. :luck:

EDIT: just read prior post, I gotta stop, but wanted to say I am not even a Christian. This is part of what u just don't get. And, Jesus is capitalized.

I'm all for helping, caring less fortunate, actually, just not government's role to do so beyond a point (which I believe we have reached). If u want $$$ for AIDS in Africa, go to the public directly and raise it. That simple. If people open their wallets and care about an issue, fine. If they don't, well they don't. Again, generally speaking.
 
Yeah, i have no idea how you can be a republican.

I don't care anymore, no one gave me any convincing argument, just catch phrases like "right to property" and "limited goverment". Who doesn't want those things? Do you think democrats don't want rights to their own property or a goverment that doesn't infridge upon us? What are you saying?

I have yet to see how the war in iraq protects my security or was justified, why handguns for all help me, and how selling drugs to poor countries at cost hurts me.

I am not portraying anybody as hicks or anything else. But I do know that most of this country is middle class and poor, and they provided most of the votes for GW. But I wonder why, simply.

Anyway, i am done with this. I actually want all poor people to stay poor and rich people to stay rich, because new money is so passe. And i like it when i pay less taxes...i wish they would get rid of the gas guzzler tax too, because then i could get the Harmon kardon stereo too.

Some people already have a good life...but its nice that GW will do anything to make it a little better. Its better for me, marginally, when we eliminate any enemies of this state. If a 1200 marines die to kill 10 al quaeda's and 10,000 citizens, thats actually fine with me (really, what do i lose...i DO sleep a little better, i live in a metro area). Or save me enough on taxes so i can see what the fuss is about over Vertu cell phones (concierge service? doesn't that come with the navigation anyway?).

Thanks flyover states for voting against your own best interest. Anyway, see ya suckers! Have a happy new year!
 
Top