Liberal thinking example 1

[resident_evil]

Liberals were the proponents of NOT quarantining countries suffering from Ebola (and to a degree Zika). Liberals loudly applauded Obama for allowing HIV+ foreigners into the country their particular HIV strain or mutations be damned.

These very SAME liberals want to force everybody to take vaccinations.

This is an example of bad leadership brought to you by the globalist "liberal" world order and they wonder why they are on the outs world wide.

@Spamature
@Arkady

 

[4/15]

I am a lib and do not remember any such actions other than the universal vaccinations. As for on the outs it tends to shift back and forth depending on what is most loudly being proclaimed and by who.

 

[middleview]

Liberals were the proponents of NOT quarantining countries suffering from Ebola (and to a degree Zika). Liberals loudly applauded Obama for allowing HIV+ foreigners into the country their particular HIV strain or mutations be damned.

These very SAME liberals want to force everybody to take vaccinations.

This is an example of bad leadership brought to you by the globalist "liberal" world order and they wonder why they are on the outs world wide.

@Spamature
@Arkady

I was going to do a top post on "Republican Thinking" but it would be such an obvious oxymoron....I decided to skip it.

The proof is you write about the silliness of quarantining countries where there is ebola...the fact is that you could only actually make that work would be by shutting off all travel into our country.

I'm curious...how many lives might have been lost because Ronald Reagan ignored HIV for years?

 

[resident_evil]

@middleview
@4/15

Let me simplify it to the base essence of the point. It was imbecilic to be against temporarily quarantining/banning travel from a part of the world rife with contagion of high mortality while all along having been a raging proponent of universal, required vaccinations as good policy. Only politics and not science accounts for that kind of discordant thinking.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I'm curious...how many lives might have been lost because Ronald Reagan ignored HIV for years?

Pure liberal fiction. Here, try some actual FACTS instead of simply parroting what your Office of Propaganda feeds you:

For the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around.


As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.


Finally, the claim that Reagan spoke about AIDS sufferers with “disdain” is simply a smear. Nothing like that ever happened, except maybe in the fictional “The Reagans” miniseries in which Barbra Streisand’s husband played Reagan as a bigot and rube.


In real life—that is to say in 1983, early in the AIDS crisis—HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler (accompanied by New York City Mayor Ed Koch, another Larry Kramer target), went to the hospital bedside of a 40-year-old AIDS patient named Peter Justice. Heckler, a devout Catholic, held the dying man’s hand, both out of compassion and to allay fears about how the disease was spread.


“We ought to be comforting the sick,” said Ronald Reagan’s top-ranking health official, “rather than afflicting them and making them a class of outcasts.”


“I’m delighted she’s here,” Justice said. “I’m delighted she cares.”


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rrecting_the_record_122806.html#ixzz4f4r5SzQ2
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

 

[middleview]

Pure liberal fiction. Here, try some actual FACTS instead of simply parroting what your Office of Propaganda feeds you:

For the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around.


As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.


Finally, the claim that Reagan spoke about AIDS sufferers with “disdain” is simply a smear. Nothing like that ever happened, except maybe in the fictional “The Reagans” miniseries in which Barbra Streisand’s husband played Reagan as a bigot and rube.


In real life—that is to say in 1983, early in the AIDS crisis—HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler (accompanied by New York City Mayor Ed Koch, another Larry Kramer target), went to the hospital bedside of a 40-year-old AIDS patient named Peter Justice. Heckler, a devout Catholic, held the dying man’s hand, both out of compassion and to allay fears about how the disease was spread.


“We ought to be comforting the sick,” said Ronald Reagan’s top-ranking health official, “rather than afflicting them and making them a class of outcasts.”


“I’m delighted she’s here,” Justice said. “I’m delighted she cares.”


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rrecting_the_record_122806.html#ixzz4f4r5SzQ2
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Reagan first mentioned AIDS in 1985 because he was asked a question about it. The first case was discovered in 1981.

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

Case closed.

 

[middleview]

@middleview
@4/15

Let me simplify it to the base essence of the point. It was imbecilic to be against temporarily quarantining/banning travel from a part of the world rife with contagion of high mortality while all along having been a raging proponent of universal, required vaccinations as good policy. Only politics and not science accounts for that kind of discordant thinking.

The point is that people all over the world come into contact with others from the stricken country and then travel to other countries where they come into others who then travel to the US. The only way a quarantine could possibly work is a global quarantine to the areas impacted....unless you can get Europe to quarantine those countries then you have to quarantine Europe also. If Asia will not quarantine both Europe and the countries in Africa that have an ebola outbreak then we have to quarantine Asia as well....

Otherwise it is a waste of time....

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Reagan first mentioned AIDS in 1985 because he was asked a question about it. The first case was discovered in 1981.

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

Case closed.

Nonsense. He requested more funding in the early 80s. Obviously that means he did not ignore it. Case closed. You lose again.

I'll leave you to whine that he didn't speak about it publicly as quickly as you wanted. Classic.

 

[middleview]

Nonsense. He requested more funding in the early 80s. Obviously that means he did not ignore it. Case closed. You lose again.

I'll leave you to whine that he didn't speak about it publicly as quickly as you wanted. Classic.

Go look at the budgets submitted by the White House from 1981 on to see where Reagan had funding for AIDS. What Congress changed that budget to is not to Reagan's credit. He simply signs what they passed.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Go look at the budgets submitted by the White House from 1981 on to see where Reagan had funding for AIDS. What Congress changed that budget to is not to Reagan's credit. He simply signs what they passed.

The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.

So... would the spending have taken place without Reagan's signature? Why are you so afraid to assign responsibility?

 

[Arkady]

Liberals were the proponents of NOT quarantining countries suffering from Ebola

The liberals I know were proponents of deferring to the professional epidemiologists when it came to how to contain those diseases, since those are the people who've spent a lifetime studying the relevant issues and can provide the most informed guidance. The conservatives, by comparison, were proponents of blind, mindless panic, because Fox News had ordered them to go into hysterics, and they always do what Fox News orders them to do. It was pathetic.

 

[middleview]

The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.

So... would the spending have taken place without Reagan's signature? Why are you so afraid to assign responsibility?

I did. Congress allocated money to Aids research. Koop was told not to issue a report on Aids. He finally did and met with a lot of flack, especially from Bennet.

See if you can find the word aids in Reagans submitted budget proposal in 1982 or 1983. I couldn't. It might be there somewhere, but damned if I can find it.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I did. Congress allocated money to Aids research. Koop was told not to issue a report on Aids. He finally did and met with a lot of flack, especially from Bennet.

See if you can find the word aids in Reagans submitted budget proposal in 1982 or 1983. I couldn't. It might be there somewhere, but damned if I can find it.

You don't need to find it. I've already provided you with the information that the Reagan administration asked for more money for AIDS. If you can't face that simple reality, that's your problem.

 

[middleview]

You don't need to find it. I've already provided you with the information that the Reagan administration asked for more money for AIDS. If you can't face that simple reality, that's your problem.

As near as I can tell the money was added by Congress. I looked at Reagan's budget in 1982 and don't see the word AIDS anywhere. That could simply be that searching a PDF doc doesn't always work as well as it might...your information doesn't show that it was a request from the adminisration as a verifiable fact.

C. Everett Koop issued a report on AIDS in 1986.

 

[Dawg]

I was going to do a top post on "Republican Thinking" but it would be such an obvious oxymoron....I decided to skip it.

The proof is you write about the silliness of quarantining countries where there is ebola...the fact is that you could only actually make that work would be by shutting off all travel into our country.

I'm curious...how many lives might have been lost because Ronald Reagan ignored HIV for years?

post any lib

all you have is Regan or Bush

 

[resident_evil]

Otherwise it is a waste of time....

You have no idea how it works do you?

Nothing in life is about absolutes. No quarantine would be perfect. Life is about speed bumps both taking them away and putting them in place. A quarantine for those affected areas was appropriate. If they were going to travel twice around the world before getting to the U.S. the better actually.

 

[Dawg]

You have no idea how it works do you?

Nothing in life is about absolutes. No quarantine would be perfect. Life is about speed bumps both taking them away and putting them in place. A quarantine for those affected areas was appropriate. If they were going to travel twice around the world before getting to the U.S. the better actually.

I don't remember any libs offering their homes for those in need...............

 

[middleview]

You have no idea how it works do you?

Nothing in life is about absolutes. No quarantine would be perfect. Life is about speed bumps both taking them away and putting them in place. A quarantine for those affected areas was appropriate. If they were going to travel twice around the world before getting to the U.S. the better actually.

And you feel the same way about the Treaty with Iran related to their nuclear weapons program?

 

[resident_evil]

And you feel the same way about the Treaty with Iran related to their nuclear weapons program?

The debate is whether or not the treaty with Iran is an adequate speed bump or not. Or if even it is a speed bump. What do you say it is?

 

[middleview]

The debate is whether or not the treaty with Iran is an adequate speed bump or not. Or if even it is a speed bump. What do you say it is?

I think it has dramatically reduced Iran's capacity to produce material for a bomb. That is what it was intended to do.