See how much less destructive a knife weilding maniac is.

I'm not. Though you certainly are.

Because he's not a hateful piece of shit like yourself?[/quote]
I'm not. Though you certainly are.[/quote]

Me?!? Hateful?!? I not the one who thinks we should have ignored AIDS to focus on other issues. Cause I'm compassionate. You, on the other hand, seem to think that doing so would have been logical. Cause you're hateful and judgmental. You apparently can't even fathom the notion of such compassion for people so different from yourself.

Because you are a hateful piece of shit.

I'm not. Though you certainly are.[/quote]

Me?!? Hateful?!? I not the one who thinks we should have ignored AIDS to focus on other issues. Cause I'm compassionate. You, on the other hand, seem to think that doing so would have been logical. Cause you're hateful and judgmental. You apparently can't even fathom the notion of such compassion for people so different from yourself.

Because you are a hateful piece of shit.[/quote]

So. If there is a disease in the future that you practically have to hunt down in order to get it, then you think we should spend billions to treat it?

Face it, the only reason the U.S. spent billions on fighting AIDS was that

1) It was venereal disease and people thought if it wasn't fought it would be like making a judgement about sexual behavior.

2) Unjustified fears that the disease could be easily spread via hetereosexual sex.

FTFY, and... yes. I think we should spend whatever in necessary to treat and prevent fatal diseases.

Reagan supposedly "ignoring" AIDS is a liberal myth with no basis in fact.

Bullshit.

Prove it from an unbiased website or it didn't happen.

Sure thing.

From an AIDS Timeline LINK provided by The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation
(Pretty well known as a non-partisan source of facts and analysis, polling and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the general public.)

Doesn't even mention it publicly until 3 years after the CDC has classified the disease as an epidemic, and the domestic death toll stood at 13,341 since the virus had been identified (with a total of about 50,000 cases diagnosed thus far.)

Apparently, in retrospect, even Reagan recognized that he'd been negligent, because, well...

Wow. Your views on AIDS are stuck somewhere in the early 1980s. IIRC that you have kids, make sure you get actual information, or they get a better source than you, when they come of age.

And yes, I can't see how such blatant misinformation could endure unless it was protected by your hate, in this case, of homosexuality.

He was bringing it up in cabinet meetings all the time, as it was killing some of his friends. He was from Hollywood, ya know.

Prove it from an unbiased website or it didn't happen.

You do realize that the fastest growing demographic of AIDS patients are black women, right? Mostly because black culture is more "nail that sticks up gets beaten down" than Japan where being openly gay is concerned...so you've got undercover brothers bringing it to women.

Also, drug users, gay and straight. But druggies are undesirables, so fuck them too, right?

Christian compassion in action, folks.

The Jesus of the Bible hated rich people, organized churches, and hypocrites like Dayton.

I mean, I don't believe in Jesus, but if we were talking about Superman, I'd want his character depicted properly too.

Well that's impossible, because no matter what website confirms it, you'll claim it's biased.

But let's give it a try.

From the Independent Gay Forum Culture Watch

The Truth about Reagan and AIDS

...

I would add that President Reagan indeed used the word "AIDS" in a September 17, 1985, press conference. So the widely accepted myth that he did not even utter those four letters until 1987 remains precisely that:a myth.

Finally, while President Reagan's critics are free to argue that he should have done more about AIDS, and perhaps he should have, the fact that total federal HIV/AIDS expenditures grew from $0 to $5.727 billion on his watch belies the notion that he "did nothing" about this vicious disease.
...

Meese described to me the TV movie's take on Reagan, AIDS, and gays as "totally unfair, and totally unrepresentative of his views or anything he ever said." Meese, who now chairs the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, recalls AIDS as a key issue with which Reagan's senior staff grappled.

"I can remember numerous sessions of the domestic-policy council where the surgeon general provided information to us, and the questions were not whether the federal government would get involved, but what would be the best way. There was support for research through the NIH. There also were questions about the extent to which public warnings should be sent out. It was a question of how the public would respond to fairly explicit warnings about fairly explicit things. Ultimately, warnings were sent out."

"As I recall, from 1984 onward - and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 - every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."
​

The article goes on to explain that the TV movies where Reagan was depicted as a Bible-thumping homophobe are also ridiculously wrong, with made up dialog that in no way represented the way Reagan really was.

And we have Real Clear Politics

Intensive politicking by the California’s liberal establishment had pared Proposition 6’s support from a whopping 75 percent to 55 percent, but that’s where the needle stayed—until Reagan spoke out. In September, he told reporters of his opposition, and followed up with an op-ed saying Proposition 6 would do “real mischief.” Support for it eroded, even in Briggs’ home county, and it lost handily.

One of those who’d urged Reagan to intervene was Los Angeles gay activist David Mixner, a friend of future president Bill Clinton. “Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being,” Mixner said of his meeting with Reagan. “He turned opinion around and saved that election for us. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it.”

This didn’t surprise those who knew Reagan. Like most movie actors, he had several gay friends. But even this is used against him by partisans. “Reagan did not even mention the word AIDS,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote last week, “until the disease was impossible to ignore and his friend Rock Hudson had died from it.”

This is almost true. It was Hudson who wouldn’t discuss AIDS; Reagan actually mentioned the disease publicly for the first time two weeks before his friend passed away. But Cohen gets his information about Reagan and AIDS from Larry Kramer—his column was touting Kramer’s new HBO movie—and Kramer is not a reliable source on the 40th president.

He often claims that Reagan never mentioned AIDS for the first seven years of his presidency. Although this falsehood is easily checked, it has spread, like its own kind of virus, into official government documents, liberals’ institutional memories, and countless news accounts from organizations with contrary evidence in their own files. It’s a fabrication with consequences. Three years after Reagan’s death, a New York Review of Books essay offering a measured reassessment of Reagan prompted this response from Kramer:

“Ronald Reagan may have done laudable things but he was also a monster and, in my estimation, responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler,” he wrote. “He is one of the persons most responsible for allowing the plague of AIDS to grow from 41 cases in 1981 to over 70 million today. He refused to even say the word out loud for the first seven years of his presidency and when he did speak about it, it was with disdain.”

Comparing a political opponent to Hitler is obvious evidence of fanaticism, but we are living in hyper-partisan times. Rep. Henry Waxman’s official congressional website repeats the “seven years” calumny while adding that “the Reagan administration consistently refused to commit the resources and effort necessary to provide urgently needed research, health care, and preventive services.”

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.” ​

Matthew, one of his apostles was a tax collector was he not? So was Zaccheus the short man who watched Christ from a tree and was known as a very wealthy man.

And please state in which verses in the New Testament Jesus condemns organized churches.

Speaking of, anyone hear from @Kyle?

Yup. I said as much in my post. I also never used Kramer's bogus "Reagan didn't call AIDS by name for the first 7 years of his presidency" nonsense either. In fact, most of the points you make don't refute the few points I actually made. You seem to be arguing with someone else.

I'll concede, however, that I may have mis-characterized his actions when I said "Reagan utterly ignored it", as he (or at least his cabinet) did indeed study the problem, and seek solutions. He just utterly ignored it publicly, prior to September of 1985. It was a public health crisis that required public acknowledgement, and public show of action, which only came after the body count forced the issue into the open. Any prior action, taken in cabinet meetings, behind closed doors, far from the public's eye, wasn't remotely an appropriate response for the administration to take.

And let's not forget that this particular conversation wasn't about Reagan's negligence or lack thereof, but of your utter lack of compassion when you suggested...

A great many people feel that Reagan didn't do nearly enough about AIDS, but you seem to be suggesting that he did way more than he should have, and that we'd be better off if he'd not wasted all that money studying a disease that only killed people you didn't give a shit about.

That's right... this conversation was born out of my reaction to that statement, which was that it proved you were "a hateful piece of shit". An opinion which, by the way, you've done absolutely nothing to disprove.

That was Dayton3, not me.

You make claims that a knife weilding maniac can do such things, but I acxtually showed an example where he was stopped before he was lethal.

Hewre is another example where non-gunweilding police were able to arrest a stabby attacker without injury to themselves and no public danger, injury, or standoff.



As a matter of fact police, the innocent public, and the attacker are far less likely to be killed, and suffer much easier to heal injuries when there are no guns involved. That is a fucking fact, and please do cite some studies that back up your claim that I am wrong.

here is the results of a school knifer

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/mike-mcdaniel/knives-vs-guns-deadly-distance/

Look at that, no deaths. Less injuries and no deaths. Even the injuries are not so severe as onl;y 4 people were in critical condition. Compare that to a similar victim count in the case of adam lanza or the columbine killers. Your idea that a knife attacker has the same damage potential is complete bullshit.

Logic says that a knife attacker has to be within a few feet to be lethal, and has to exhert a lot of physical force to stab an aware person critically. A shooter can kill at at a larger distance and has to use far less force to kill other people. This means the gunner would have the ability to hit and damage more people in an area in a given amount of time merely because he does not have to run as far or get into melee with them. The damage will on average be more traumatic given the same hit ratio and location because the bullet carries far more energy than the knife does. That is a physical fact. The bullet has more energy and less drag than a knife or sword blade. So no, your argument that a knife or sword can be as damaging is wrong. The fact that sometimes a knife weilder does more damage only is reliant on the will of the killer and the accessibility and will of the people responding. It is not even true statistically that knives do more serious damage. The only reason knives actually result in more less serious injuries is just because of their utility. It is a tool that mankind has to use every day. A gun is not as useful. So since you are not goiug to be cutting up your vegetables or cutting foliage with your gun means that the overall damage knives do is going to be larger, but because they have more utility we will not be able to reduce that level as much as we can with gun regulation.

Zaccheus the short man? Now it's making sense.....he's in a tree doing recon on Jesus. Then the next thing you know, he's using his shortness to hide behind the "grassy knoll" and we know what happens next.
I can't believe they cut all that out of the bible! Now I have to buy the criterion version of the bible at twice the price!