• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

sawyerloggingon said:
You must have me confused with someone else but while I am at it you left out the 15 billion a year we spend buying AIDS drugs annually in your last post so the real AIDS number is 18 billion a year.
Click to expand...
You were debating the amount of RESEARCH funding with Deuce in post #191.

If you can't keep track of your discussions, what the point was, and then toss in something else....this will be going nowhere.

But if you are going to start counting EVERYTHING the fed spends on HIV/AIDS, it still gets nowhere near military spending.....so you are still just shooting at the moon.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You were debating the amount of RESEARCH funding with Deuce in post #191.

If you can't keep track of your discussions, what the point was, and then toss in something else....this will be going nowhere.

But if you are going to start counting EVERYTHING the fed spends on HIV/AIDS, it still gets nowhere near military spending.....so you are still just shooting at the moon.
Click to expand...

Read post 191 again, deuce mentioned military spending, I ignored that and put quotes on the following statement and responded to it. You either did not notice that or are trying to make it look like I said something I did not say and are doing so on purpose, typical lib trick.

And the quote was... drum roll......:lol:

"Resources are not unlimited, true, but you also can't just throw unlimited money at any particular disease."
 
sawyerloggingon said:
"Resources are not unlimited, true, but you also can't just throw unlimited money at any particular disease."
Click to expand...
Your response was:

sawyerloggingon said:
We are doing very close to just that with our exorbitant spending on AIDS.
Click to expand...
And my answer is still valid, we are not.

Next time, don't try to wiggle away by saying my answer doesn't apply....when it does.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Not revoked just greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

You know, you may be right. Maybe we should reduce our AIDs spending in this time of little economic stability. There is no need to help to end a deadly disease (that affects the entire world mind you) because our businesses left. The logic in this argument is impeccable
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Your response was:

And my answer is still valid, we are not.

Next time, don't try to wiggle away by saying my answer doesn't apply....when it does.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't try to hang the "we are spending as much on AIDS as we are defense" statement around my neck I have no problem with your answer, we just disagree.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
You know, you may be right. Maybe we should reduce our AIDs spending in this time of little economic stability. There is no need to help to end a deadly disease (that affects the entire world mind you) because our businesses left. The logic in this argument is impeccable
Click to expand...


Can you justify spending more on AIDS than on any other disease and probably even all other diseases put together?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
As long as you don't try to hang the "we are spending as much on AIDS as we are defense" statement around my neck I have no problem with your answer, we just disagree.
Click to expand...
Sure, just as soon as you learn to either edit a quote or bold the portion you are responding to, and then make a direct, coherent statement in response.
 
Gimmesometruth;1061218985[QUOTE said:
]Sure, just as soon as you learn to either edit a quote
Click to expand...
or bold the portion you are responding to, and then make a direct, coherent statement in response.[/QUOTE]

Just so you know, when a quote is wrapped around a sentence in a post that is generally what you are replying to, see above. :lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Can you justify spending more on AIDS than on any other disease and probably even all other diseases put together?
Click to expand...
So in effect, you are arguing that we should fund other disease research/care at higher levels.

I agree.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth;1061218985[QUOTE
]Sure, just as soon as you learn to either edit a quote
or bold the portion you are responding to, and then make a direct, coherent statement in response.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, when a quote is wrapped around a sentence in a post that is generally what you are replying to, see above.
Click to expand...
Yeah, great example.

Try again.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You must have me confused with someone else but while I am at it you left out the 15 billion a year we spend buying AIDS drugs annually in your last post so the real AIDS number is 18 billion a year.
Click to expand...

Is that all? For a transmittable disease of 28,000,000 people and the ability to kill anyone anywhere because it is transmittable? $642 per person - treatment and research? Any one of the 28 million could ultimately lead to a million more deaths? Or a billion.

Its not enough. Not even close.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So in effect, you are arguing that we should fund other disease research/care at higher levels.

I agree.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world where we have unlimited funds we should fund research on all diseases with whatever money it takes, I live in reality though whereas you live in la la land.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You gay guys are such drama queens.:roll:
Click to expand...
sawyerloggingon said:
Instead of insulting me tell me exactly where I am wrong. The fact that you have to resort to personal insults means you can't tell me where I am wrong.
Click to expand...
sawyerloggingon said:
In a perfect world where we have unlimited funds we should fund research on all diseases with whatever money it takes, I live in reality though whereas you live in la la land.
Click to expand...
You live in Idaho and are an example of the sort that reside in and around Coeur d'Alene.

You have already reduced your argument from "should we spend tax dollars?" to now arguing over how much, and along the way you have become a total hypocrite while displaying an inability to quote or make rational argument....and you did not even create a poll in this thread...in the "poll" forum.

As others have pointed out, this is a treatable disease, the effectiveness of recent treatment has been great, the funding will probably decline as the "bang for the buck" plateaus.

All you have is RW talking points mixed in with obvious homophobia and really poor debate skills, but that is what happens when you are stuck on the porch...in Idaho.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You live in Idaho and are an example of the sort that reside in and around Coeur d'Alene.

You have already reduced your argument from "should we spend tax dollars?" to now arguing over how much, and along the way you have become a total hypocrite while displaying an inability to quote or make rational argument....and you did not even create a poll in this thread...in the "poll" forum.

As others have pointed out, this is a treatable disease, the effectiveness of recent treatment has been great, the funding will probably decline as the "bang for the buck" plateaus.
Click to expand...

All you have is RW talking points mixed in with obvious homophobia and really poor debate skills, but that is what happens when you are stuck on the porch...in Idaho.
Click to expand...

I will respond to the ONE sentence in your post that is pertinent to the issue and ignore the rest of your personal attack rant. We have spent countless billions to find a treatment for a disease of choice. You choose to risk getting AIDS when you choose to share needles and or engage in promiscuous sex especially anal sex. Money down the toilet if you ask me. Just think if we had instead spent that money on Parkinson's MS etc. There might just be a cure or at least better treatments for these horrific diseases people get through no fault of their own.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I will respond to the ONE sentence in your post that is pertinent to the issue and ignore the rest of your personal attack rant. We have spent countless billions to find a treatment for a disease of choice. You choose to risk getting AIDS when you choose to share needles and or engage in promiscuous sex especially anal sex. Money down the toilet if you ask me. Just think if we had instead spent that money on Parkinson's MS etc. There might just be a cure or at least better treatments for these horrific diseases people get through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...
All you have is a morality based argument wrapped around an ignorance of the past dollars spent (uninflated for comparison) and ignorance on the level of how treatable an ailment is. It is intentionally avoiding any depth of thought because it is based on a homophobic viewpoint. You have your viewpoint and nothing will change it. You made the argument not based primarily on rational argument but on a personal bias, so sorry, you don't get to play the personal attack victim argument. You lost the argument right from the start.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
All you have is a morality based argument wrapped around an ignorance of the past dollars spent (uninflated for comparison) and ignorance on the level of how treatable an ailment is. It is intentionally avoiding any depth of thought because it is based on a homophobic viewpoint. You have your viewpoint and nothing will change it. You made the argument not based primarily on rational argument but on a personal bias, so sorry, you don't get to play the personal attack victim argument. You lost the argument right from the start.
Click to expand...

I know, I am racist because I disagree with obama, a misogynist because I despise Hillary and a homophobe because I think we spend disproportionately on AIDS.:roll:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I know, I am....... a homophobe because I think we spend disproportionately on AIDS.:roll:
Click to expand...
See, this is the personal dishonesty that just gets you in trouble, I cited 3 examples of you displaying homophobia just in this thread and you can't face them.

That's not my problem.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I know, I am racist because I disagree with obama, a misogynist because I despise Hillary and a homophobe because I think we spend disproportionately on AIDS.:roll:
Click to expand...

Definitely a homophob. That is your OP. That gays and promiscuous people "deserve" to die of AIDS for which you do not want a vaccine even if one could be found. So it has NOTHING to do with money. It has to do with you openly wanting gays and promiscuous people to die. That is your own words.

Wanting gays to die because they "deserve" it is definitely as radical and hateful homophobia as can be.
 
joko104 said:
Definitely a homophob. That is your OP. That gays and promiscuous people "deserve" to die of AIDS for which you do not want a vaccine even if one could be found. So it has NOTHING to do with money. It has to do with you openly wanting gays and promiscuous people to die. That is your own words.

Wanting gays to die because they "deserve" it is definitely as radical and hateful homophobia as can be.[/QUOT

I can't have a real discussion with someone who insist on misquoting me. The fact that you have to resort to such boorish tactics tells me I am wasting my time with you.
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
joko104 said:
Definitely a homophob. That is your OP. That gays and promiscuous people "deserve" to die of AIDS for which you do not want a vaccine even if one could be found. So it has NOTHING to do with money. It has to do with you openly wanting gays and promiscuous people to die. That is your own words.

Wanting gays to die because they "deserve" it is definitely as radical and hateful homophobia as can be.
Click to expand...

I can't have a real discussion with someone who insist on misquoting me. The fact that you have to resort to such boorish tactics tells me I am wasting my time with you.
Click to expand...

sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Not misquoting you. Not in the slightest. And, notably, you are an extreme gay basher all over the forum, literally blaming gays and promiscuous people for the fall of the Roman Empire - claiming the USA is following that pattern due to less credence with "Judeo-Christian values" - meaning your gay bashing is also your religion - all you write being absurd as Rome fell AFTER it has Christianized.

I would think you would at least attempt to have SOME integrity in your messages somehow - rather than just you and God says AIDS should be used to kill off promiscuous people with AIDS as punishment for their lifestyle. The consequence you want for their "lifestyle" is to die of AIDS, for which the worst thing to happen is to find a vaccine against AIDS.

Your messages are overwhelming the most intensely hateful messages against gays on the forum - worse that Tigger's messages. He wants gay executed. You want to kill them slowly by disease - and no matter who else that risks as they are acceptable collateral damage to you in the genocide you want against promiscuous people and gays - such as the 3,400,000 children with AIDS.

Compared to you, Hilter was a humanitarian. But you and Hilter agreed about gays - other than he too was more merciful in how he had them killed that you want in your messages.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Not misquoting you. Not in the slightest. And, notably, you are an extreme gay basher all over the forum, literally blaming gays and promiscuous people for the fall of the Roman Empire - claiming the USA is following that pattern due to less credence with "Judeo-Christian values" - meaning your gay bashing is also your religion - it all be absurd as Rome fell AFTER it has Christianized.

I would think you would at least attempt to have SOME integrity in your messages somehow - rather than just you and God says AIDS should be used to kill off promiscuous people with AIDS as punishment for their lifestyle. The consequence you want for their "lifestyle" is to die of AIDS, for which the worst thing to happen is to find a vaccine against AIDS.

Your messages are overwhelming the most intensely hateful messages against gays on the forum - worse that Tigger's messages. He wants gay executed. You want to kill them slowly by disease - and no matter who else that risks as they are acceptable collateral damage to you in the genocide you want against promiscuous people and gays - such as the 3,400,000 children with AIDS.

Compared to you, Hilter was a humanitarian. But you and Hilter agreed about gays - other than he too was more merciful in how he had them killed that you want in your messages.
Click to expand...

Well said. **** that guy.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Not misquoting you. Not in the slightest. And, notably, you are an extreme gay basher all over the forum, literally blaming gays and promiscuous people for the fall of the Roman Empire - claiming the USA is following that pattern due to less credence with "Judeo-Christian values" - meaning your gay bashing is also your religion - all you write being absurd as Rome fell AFTER it has Christianized.

I would think you would at least attempt to have SOME integrity in your messages somehow - rather than just you and God says AIDS should be used to kill off promiscuous people with AIDS as punishment for their lifestyle. The consequence you want for their "lifestyle" is to die of AIDS, for which the worst thing to happen is to find a vaccine against AIDS.

Your messages are overwhelming the most intensely hateful messages against gays on the forum - worse that Tigger's messages. He wants gay executed. You want to kill them slowly by disease - and no matter who else that risks as they are acceptable collateral damage to you in the genocide you want against promiscuous people and gays - such as the 3,400,000 children with AIDS.

Compared to you, Hilter was a humanitarian. But you and Hilter agreed about gays - other than he too was more merciful in how he had them killed that you want in your messages.
Click to expand...

This is what you claimed I said, "Wanting gays to die because they "deserve" it is definitely as radical and hateful homophobia as can be. Funny but in all your real quotes of me that just doesn't show up. :shrug:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
This is what you claimed I said, "Wanting gays to die because they "deserve" it is definitely as radical and hateful homophobia as can be. Funny but in all your real quotes of me that just doesn't show up. :shrug:
Click to expand...


It exactly does. You they deserve AIDS. You state you want no cure and even more want no vaccine. Because of their "lifestyle."
 
joko104 said:
It exactly does. You they deserve AIDS. You state you want no cure and even more want no vaccine. Because of their "lifestyle."
Click to expand...

LMAO. again misquoting me. Show me where I said I want no cure, no vaccine. I am starting to think you have a freakin screw loose boy.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse
a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got
being gay
So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?
Click to expand...

The Monte Python Parrot sketch was funny when they did it about a dead parrot. It isn't when it is about millions dead and 28,000,000 dying with tens of thousands more every couple of weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom