Given Money to AIDS Research? You'd be surprised where its really going.

[tcsenter]

Ah, well, your pro-gay (not anti-AIDS) activists at work masquerading as "AIDS" awareness and research. And no, I'm not at all surprised...

 

[sandorski]

Those certainly are misapropriations(sp) of funds, however those kind of antics are not exclusive to AIDS research. Find the bad apples, throw them out, but don't just axe a whole groupd because of them.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Tex, I see no problem with this at all. (besides the fact that I don't believe it should be publically funded, but that's another arguement.) The basis for these seminars is to promote safe(er) sex. You aren't going to get a good turn out by simply calling it a safe sex class. So they spice it up a bit. If I were to hold safe sex seminars, and wanted a good turn out and lots of attention, I'd do this as well. >>




Fair enough Amused but ponder this one. The supporters of Aids funding love to point out that Heterosexuals have passed Homosexuals in infection of the Aids virus yet these programs target only homosexuals. Bit of a double standard.



<< As for housing, I agree. We shouldn't be providing housing for anyone... unless it's a private charity doing so. >>



Agreed.



<< As for expenses of fund executives, so what? The Red Cross's top exec gets somewhere around $300,000. You have to pay that much, or you'll lose good managment to the for-profit sector. >>



These people are wasteing taxpayers money. I don't care what the cause, waste is waste and fraud is fraud.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Seeing how Reagan blew it on AIDS, I don't think rightwingers should be consulted on AIDS research. >>



Going back to my previous statement: The problem is if anyone questions where the money is going or wants to clean up the mess they are a homophobe, bigot, right winged nut etc.


Supertool, thanks once again for reading like a book.

 

[AaronP]

OK, Supertool, you FRICKEN FOOL! At the end of 1988, there were a WHOPPING number of 80,930 cases of AIDS in the 50 United States. This data can be found RIGHT FRICKEN HERE THE CDC and the US Population at the end of 1988 was roughly 245,500,000 people. SOURCE IS RIGHT HERE HO

So, at the end of Reagan's 8 bloody years in office, the rate of AIDS among US citizens was 80,930 / 245,500,000 or 3.2965e-4 which is roughly 1/30th of 1%

Now, it gets EVEN BETTER FOOL. 66,000 of those 80,930 cases were from MALE HOMOSEXUAL CONTACT. Source is same as above. So, the average, straight american has a 15,000 in 245,000,000, or ~ 1/150th of 1% chance of getting AIDS at the end of Reagan's term. Is that what you refer to as: "Reagan's failed AIDS policy"

Sure must SUCK when the facts don't back you up eh? And you had the audacity to call someone else in this thread an idiot. OK, go home now, but make sure to be careful where you walk, that AIDS is spreadin like wildfire and you wouldn't want to catch it.

 

[johnjohn320]

This kinda died...

 

[Texmaster]

<< This kinda died... >>



Usually happens when AaronP lays down the facts, the little liberals run away

Facts Figures and Numbers O My!

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Tex, I see no problem with this at all. (besides the fact that I don't believe it should be publically funded, but that's another arguement.) The basis for these seminars is to promote safe(er) sex. You aren't going to get a good turn out by simply calling it a safe sex class. So they spice it up a bit. If I were to hold safe sex seminars, and wanted a good turn out and lots of attention, I'd do this as well. >>



Fair enough Amused but ponder this one. The supporters of Aids funding love to point out that Heterosexuals have passed Homosexuals in infection of the Aids virus yet these programs target only homosexuals. Bit of a double standard. >>



Actually, it isn't. Per capita, gays are far more likely to contract HIV. In raw numbers, though, heterosexuals are now the fastest growing segment. The numbers make perfect sense, because the gay population is under 10% of the general population.

You aren't going to be able to educate gays OR heteros by having programs geared to both. Not with the bias both have towards each other in our society. You'll need to keep the programs separate to make each group as comfortable as possible, not to mention the particulars of sex are going to be very different.



<<

<< As for housing, I agree. We shouldn't be providing housing for anyone... unless it's a private charity doing so. >>



Agreed. >>





<<

<< As for expenses of fund executives, so what? The Red Cross's top exec gets somewhere around $300,000. You have to pay that much, or you'll lose good managment to the for-profit sector. >>



These people are wasteing taxpayers money. I don't care what the cause, waste is waste and fraud is fraud. >>



Oh, I agree. None of this should be done with taxpayers money. But then, I don't believe the government should be involved in health care in any way, shape or form. But that ain't going to happen any time soon. So if the government is going to run charities, they are going to have to compete with the private sector for good managers. This means paying them in line with private sector management positions. As with anything out there, you get what you pay for. If they hire cheap, they get cheap.

 

[Amused]

<< OK, Supertool, you FRICKEN FOOL! At the end of 1988, there were a WHOPPING number of 80,930 cases of AIDS in the 50 United States. This data can be found RIGHT FRICKEN HERE THE CDC and the US Population at the end of 1988 was roughly 245,500,000 people. SOURCE IS RIGHT HERE HO

So, at the end of Reagan's 8 bloody years in office, the rate of AIDS among US citizens was 80,930 / 245,500,000 or 3.2965e-4 which is roughly 1/30th of 1%

Now, it gets EVEN BETTER FOOL. 66,000 of those 80,930 cases were from MALE HOMOSEXUAL CONTACT. Source is same as above. So, the average, straight american has a 15,000 in 245,000,000, or ~ 1/150th of 1% chance of getting AIDS at the end of Reagan's term. Is that what you refer to as: "Reagan's failed AIDS policy"

Sure must SUCK when the facts don't back you up eh? And you had the audacity to call someone else in this thread an idiot. OK, go home now, but make sure to be careful where you walk, that AIDS is spreadin like wildfire and you wouldn't want to catch it. >>



I hate to be a jerk, but this only lists the current rate (at the time) of AIDS, not a cumulative total. And it only lists AIDS cases as defined prior to 1992. Not the total number of HIV infected people. There is a huge difference between the number of people with AIDS, and the total number of people with HIV... as at any given time, the number of people with HIV will vastly outnumber the number of people with AIDS, especially before they changed definition of AIDS in 92.

Now, I'm not disagreeing with your point (I'm not agreeing with it either) all I'm saying is you need the whole picture, and the stats you presented are not the whole picture.

 

[BuckleDownBen]

As far as AaronP's statistics goes, it might not sound like a lot of people that have the disease, but from a medical standpoint it still qualifies as an epidemic. I don't know anything about Reagan's policy, so I can't comment on that, but I think the point people are trying to make is that if it weren't centered in the fringe communities of homosexuals and drug users, but instead average people were contracting the disease, what would public reaction be, even if the same number of people were dying each year. I hope Texmaster and AaronP aren't saying that all these people should die. (I don't think they are, but that some other people in this board would say it)