If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Obama's plan to reduce AIDS "Step 1: Stop getting AIDS"   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 274
    More: Obvious, HIV, Melody Barnes, aides, domestic policy, Health and Human Services, stigma, quality of life, infections  
•       •       •

8357 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2010 at 1:17 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-07-13 11:01:41 AM  
seriously

The strategy calls for reducing the rate of new HIV infections by 25 percent over the next five years

he's discovered magic!
 
2010-07-13 11:02:54 AM  
I get the feeling that most of D.C. doesn't have a clue what its like outside the beltway...
 
2010-07-13 11:08:30 AM  
Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan." Not so fast, submitter and first two posters...
 
2010-07-13 11:09:19 AM  
So this means teaching proper sex education and condom use, yes? Right?
 
2010-07-13 11:11:37 AM  
A moratorium on dicking one another.
 
2010-07-13 11:11:47 AM  
kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan." Not so fast, submitter and first two posters...

goals should be based on realism or they're nothing more than platitudes--even us dumb right-wing Rovian Bushbot neocons can see when a goal is purely political, not realistic.
 
2010-07-13 11:12:59 AM  
kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan."

Look, smart guy, both of them words have four letters, and two of those letters just happen to be the same farkin' thing. So there can't be that much of a difference between them, all your fancy book learnin' or no.
 
2010-07-13 11:14:48 AM  
kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan."

I never hear vuvuzelas after I make a plan.
 
2010-07-13 11:15:29 AM  
albo: kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan." Not so fast, submitter and first two posters...

goals should be based on realism or they're nothing more than platitudes--even us dumb right-wing Rovian Bushbot neocons can see when a goal is purely political, not realistic.


you know what I don't get? our society is fine with imposing all kinds of taxes, restrictions and regulations on things like tobacco just so long as someone tells them that doing so serves some greater good. But nobody is willing to impose restrictions on behavior to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

for my part, if you're ok with the asinine restrictions placed on tobacco and sugary foods, then you should also be in favor of restrictions/regulations on sexual behavior. to be otherwise is to be a hypocritical bastard. Once you take up the mantra of 'for the greater good' then you it applies across the board. No exceptions.
 
2010-07-13 11:17:04 AM  
Yea this is a totally unrealistic goal. Teaching kids proper sex education, condom use, and encouraging stable relationships?

Not a good plan when you have social conservatives pushing hard against all three. Just give it up Dems, and admit that you turned America is a shiathole in 18 short months, just like the Republicans keep telling us. Then re-elect them to bring us back to the glory days of AIDs in the Reagan era.

Yeesh, you libs are so stupid.
 
2010-07-13 11:22:32 AM  
It's cliche to say it, but the devil is in the details. If it's something a bit more sophisticated "abstinence solves everything" then it might have a chance.
 
2010-07-13 11:23:58 AM  
palladiate: Yea this is a totally unrealistic goal. Teaching kids proper sex education, condom use, and encouraging stable relationships?

we've been doing that for 25 years, through GOP and democratic administrations alike. so now obama is going to be doing the same thing, and rates will drop 25 percent?

has he discovered a super-duper effective education plan no one else thought of?
 
2010-07-13 11:26:07 AM  
palladiate: Yea this is a totally unrealistic goal. Teaching kids proper sex education, condom use, and encouraging stable relationships?

Not a good plan when you have social conservatives pushing hard against all three. Just give it up Dems, and admit that you turned America is a shiathole in 18 short months, just like the Republicans keep telling us. Then re-elect them to bring us back to the glory days of AIDs in the Reagan era.

Yeesh, you libs are so stupid.


wut?
 
2010-07-13 11:27:21 AM  
Weaver95: albo: kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan." Not so fast, submitter and first two posters...

goals should be based on realism or they're nothing more than platitudes--even us dumb right-wing Rovian Bushbot neocons can see when a goal is purely political, not realistic.

you know what I don't get? our society is fine with imposing all kinds of taxes, restrictions and regulations on things like tobacco just so long as someone tells them that doing so serves some greater good. But nobody is willing to impose restrictions on behavior to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

for my part, if you're ok with the asinine restrictions placed on tobacco and sugary foods, then you should also be in favor of restrictions/regulations on sexual behavior. to be otherwise is to be a hypocritical bastard. Once you take up the mantra of 'for the greater good' then you it applies across the board. No exceptions.


How do you tax unprotected sex though? By definition you're not using anything that could be taxed like a condom.
 
2010-07-13 11:29:07 AM  
Weaver95: But nobody is willing to impose restrictions on behavior to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Intraveinous drug use is already illegal, yet it still occurs. Banning unprotected sex won't solve anything as people will still do it.
 
2010-07-13 11:29:43 AM  
NOW you tell me.
 
2010-07-13 11:32:50 AM  
Andromeda: How do you tax unprotected sex though? By definition you're not using anything that could be taxed like a condom.

on the honor system.

make it a line on your 1040 form. "How many times have you had unprotected sex? Multiple that figure by $50 and remit the total. And was he cute?"
 
2010-07-13 11:33:10 AM  
Flab: Weaver95: But nobody is willing to impose restrictions on behavior to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Intraveinous drug use is already illegal, yet it still occurs. Banning unprotected sex won't solve anything as people will still do it.


so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.
 
2010-07-13 11:36:51 AM  
Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

and give them colorful felt triangles to wear
 
2010-07-13 11:37:13 AM  
Weaver95: Flab: Weaver95: But nobody is willing to impose restrictions on behavior to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Intraveinous drug use is already illegal, yet it still occurs. Banning unprotected sex won't solve anything as people will still do it.

so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.


Yea we should make them carry around cards and stuff and check off a box on their employment application.

C'mon man, I thought you usually take a pretty big stance against big government and in favor of privacy and here you are advocating for an open medical notification on people who are infected with HIV?
 
2010-07-13 11:39:03 AM  
Weaver95: albo: kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan." Not so fast, submitter and first two posters...

goals should be based on realism or they're nothing more than platitudes--even us dumb right-wing Rovian Bushbot neocons can see when a goal is purely political, not realistic.

you know what I don't get? our society is fine with imposing all kinds of taxes, restrictions and regulations on things like tobacco just so long as someone tells them that doing so serves some greater good. But nobody is willing to impose restrictions on behavior to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

for my part, if you're ok with the asinine restrictions placed on tobacco and sugary foods, then you should also be in favor of restrictions/regulations on sexual behavior. to be otherwise is to be a hypocritical bastard. Once you take up the mantra of 'for the greater good' then you it applies across the board. No exceptions.


Seriously, how do you propose we do this? I don't understand.
 
2010-07-13 11:45:26 AM  
Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

Wow. I haven't heard that sort of nonsense since the late 80's when straight people started to realize they could get AIDS too. I knew people who fully advocated the the quarantine of anyone HIV positive, against their will if necessary. Of course, what they REALLY meant was quarantine all homosexuals, for the greater good. I guess these days we could expand that to all IV drug users as well, sort of a clean up America pact?

We have come so far.

Excuse me, I have to go vomit.
 
2010-07-13 11:46:36 AM  
Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

That's not imposing restrictions on behavior as you originally suggested. That's punishing behavior.

Different beasts altogher.
 
2010-07-13 11:50:47 AM  
Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

Privacy invasion is the first problem with your statement
Larger government intervention
Creating a class of "untouchables"

Why not go all the way and just put those infected with AIDS/HIV in concentration camps and just burn them? Jesus H Christ. Did you even THINK when you posted that?
 
2010-07-13 11:54:14 AM  
albo: goals should be based on realism or they're nothing more than platitudes--even us dumb right-wing Rovian Bushbot neocons can see when a goal is purely political, not realistic.

If someone can get the Catholic church to STFU about not using condoms....
 
2010-07-13 11:55:20 AM  
SpaceyCat: Did you even THINK when you posted that?

Yes, he most certainly did. This is an instance where The Federal Govt spending money on something (sex-ed) is the only solution that actually makes sense. This is causing Weaver's brain synapses to short-circuit and leave him no other choice than to Godwin the thread in the hopes that it will derail so badly that the modmins will redlight it. It happens sometimes.
 
2010-07-13 11:55:22 AM  
Donald_McRonald: kronicfeld: Raise your hand if you can tell the difference between a "goal" and a "plan."

I never hear vuvuzelas after I make a plan.


That took me a while. Kudos.
 
2010-07-13 11:55:57 AM  
Flab: Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

That's not imposing restrictions on behavior as you originally suggested. That's punishing behavior.

Different beasts altogher.


excuse me, but have you SEEN some of the restrictions on tobacco and food these days? we're to the point where we're banning smoking in homes and personal vehicles. if we're willing to go with zero tolerance on something as insignificant as tobacco, then why the hell not go full bore containment on HIV/AIDS?
 
2010-07-13 11:56:34 AM  
albo: through GOP and democratic administrations alike

ORLY? We didn't fight and gut condom-use education? CDC recommendations? Liberal propaganda. AMA recommendations? Dr Coburn says condoms aren't good medical science.

If I give you good information 1/2 the time, and bullshiat the other half, hey, uncertainty disappears right? You're 1/2 way to good information, aren't you? Right?
 
2010-07-13 11:58:19 AM  
Stop shooting up drugs unless it's your own needle,
Stop raping African monkeys.
Stop firing infected semen into another person's ass.
Be a rich celebrity who has access to the cure.

It's really a very preventable disease.
 
2010-07-13 11:59:23 AM  
albo: Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

and give them colorful felt triangles to wear


They could wear a bright red "A."

/For AIDS.
//I'd also accept crimson, carmine, cerise, or ruby.
///but not scarlet.
 
2010-07-13 12:00:07 PM  
Weaver95: Flab: Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

That's not imposing restrictions on behavior as you originally suggested. That's punishing behavior.

Different beasts altogher.

excuse me, but have you SEEN some of the restrictions on tobacco and food these days? we're to the point where we're banning smoking in homes and personal vehicles. if we're willing to go with zero tolerance on something as insignificant as tobacco, then why the hell not go full bore containment on HIV/AIDS?


Because when the best protection against HIV for sexually active folks is stable monogamy, half our country is fighting against it for the highest risk groups.
 
2010-07-13 12:01:30 PM  
Weaver95: if we're willing to go with zero tolerance on something as insignificant as tobacco, then why the hell not go full bore containment on HIV/AIDS?

Tobacco is something someone chooses to ingest/smoke. HIV/AIDS is a disease that someone contracts - some may be from risky behaviors or may be through something as simple as a blood transfusion.

If you're really all for HIV/AIDS protection, then why the hell aren't you screaming for free condoms to be handed out to EVERYONE who wants them? Why aren't you for increasing sexual education on how to prevent the spread?

Instead, the only thing you seem to be espousing is privacy invasion, imprisoning those with the disease, and forgetting anything about PREVENTING it.
 
2010-07-13 12:01:58 PM  
Weaver95: Once you take up the mantra of 'for the greater good' then you it applies across the board. No exceptions.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever r--

Weaver95: so isolate the infected and force registration/notification of non-infected.

...ead...

ಠ_ಠ
 
2010-07-13 12:03:33 PM  
Weaver95: we're to the point where we're banning smoking in homes and personal vehicles.

Link? Secondly, how is that law enforced? To my previous point, passing a law banning unprotected sex won't achieve anything unless it's enforced.

Also, if you don't agree with one law, you can either make your voice heard, move to a city/county/state/country where said law is not on the books, or STFU and get over it.
 
2010-07-13 12:10:48 PM  
Yeah, um...no one here read the article, did they?
 
2010-07-13 12:18:35 PM  
Cagey B: Yeah, um...no one here read the article, did they?

What article?
 
2010-07-13 12:21:34 PM  
Cagey B: Yeah, um...no one here read the article, did they?

I even brought up how Republicans constantly rail on blacks and gays, two groups that Republicans like to routinely stigmatize and are the target of the policies. Which makes conservative butthurt leaking all over this thread all the more rich and frothy.
 
2010-07-13 12:22:48 PM  
This is a government takeover of the AIDS market.
 
2010-07-13 12:23:17 PM  
Why should people be given free condoms? People do make a living making condoms, you know. I'm not a pro-absence freak but as Sam Kinison said, if you don't trust the pussy, don't fark the pussy. Or in most cases the ass.
 
2010-07-13 12:30:18 PM  
impaler: Cagey B: Yeah, um...no one here read the article, did they?

What article?


Apparently, there are Fark threads that link to articles, kind of like some have voting enabled. It's too much work to figure out which is which, though.
 
2010-07-13 12:39:41 PM  
Well, if President Obama can stop Americans from being saved by Christ, I'm sure this shouldn't be a problem at all.
 
2010-07-13 12:43:11 PM  
So, now we're upset because Obama wants to emphasize prevention?
 
2010-07-13 12:47:34 PM  
Barbigazi: So, now we're upset because Obama wants to emphasize prevention?

I think we're all upset that Obama is Obama, since I have yet to hear anyone specifically refer to any of his proposed actions.
 
2010-07-13 12:51:24 PM  
albo: goals should be based on realism or they're nothing more than platitudes--even us dumb right-wing Rovian Bushbot neocons can see when a goal is purely political, not realistic.

If you say "reduce infection rates is the goal" then you have to look at ways of reaching that goal.

Barakku: So this means teaching proper sex education and condom use, yes? Right?

That's a good path. See? Now the idiocy of the first two posts can take its rest, well satisfied that there is a path towards the goal.
 
2010-07-13 12:52:07 PM  
Mugato: Stop raping African monkeys.

Screw YOU, pal! Don't tell me how to live my life!
 
2010-07-13 01:20:37 PM  
Anyone in here actually know someone who has died of AIDS? Really? Anyone? Because I never have. Im not gonna bone some dude in the ass or nail a busted stripper with a chapped tool so this really doesn't concern me
 
2010-07-13 01:22:10 PM  
Lando Lincoln: Mugato: Stop raping African monkeys.

Screw YOU, pal! Don't tell me how to live my life!


They are passing it to frogs now. PANIC!!!
(Maybe NSFW)
 
2010-07-13 01:22:21 PM  
Barakku: So this means teaching proper sex education and condom use, yes? Right?

No, this means sitting with our thumbs up our collective asses until more white, straight people get AIDS. Then we just piss money into the medical-industrial complex until they figure out a pharmeceutical way to force AIDS into remission and sell it at a prohibitively high price, so they can make a killing off drug sales.

Proper sex education and safe, responsible sex is teh debil's work.
 
2010-07-13 01:22:26 PM  
o5iiawah: Anyone in here actually know someone who has died of AIDS? Really? Anyone? Because I never have. Im not gonna bone some dude in the ass or nail a busted stripper with a chapped tool so this really doesn't concern me

Too over the top.
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report