Wait...

So a primarily sexual/drug-use related disease is in what way similar to Ebola?

(10-17-2014 12:30 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Except the two bear no similarities. Obama is culpable for this b/c he won't do the job he can do: ban air traffic.

Should Reagan have closed air traffic from Africa to protect against the spread of HIV? I mean, the transmission factor here isn't completely dissimilar.

Actually it is.

Amazing ain't it.

don't waste your time DBJ. conservatives want absolutely nothing to do with this talking point regardless of it's legitimacy (which it clearly is). already addressed it in a thread this sumer and the conversation went 30+ pages. http://csnbbs.com/thread-691478-page-3.html

mlb. the big difference between ebola & AIDS is that with AIDS in the 80s we clearly needed the president to take a hands on approach to it. due to the stigma associated with the early demographics that it hit and a reluctance against condom advocacy at the time. it was a completely different monster that depended on the current president publicly addressing those issues. we don't have those problems with ebola which is why you can't compare the responses here.

I can't imagine how a mysterious virus killing more than a 100 people doesn't get at the very least a public comment from the POTUS. in this case it wasn't until 26K deaths that he did.

Sorry, I just don't see the culpability of the President. He is not the surgeon general nor the CDC, WHO, or any other medical body. That should be left to the experts.

(10-17-2014 12:33 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:23 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Would I be a bigot for blaming it on gays? They brought it back with them. Could have quarantined all homosexuals.

How do you know that? HIV can be spread through shared needles, heterosexual sex, blood transfusions... it isn't just gay sex.

For gays it was the promiscuity and type of sex, anal sex must more dangerous.

(10-17-2014 12:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  Sorry, I just don't see the culpability of the President. He is not the surgeon general nor the CDC, WHO, or any other medical body. That should be left to the experts.

The mistake you make is believing that this can be compartmentalized into one issue. It's not simply all about microbiology.

(10-17-2014 12:35 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:15 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Aren't you like 50 years old? Good Lord man, grow up.

Ouch. I know that's not directed at me, but that just hurts. Low blow... can we get a moderator over here?

A mod for what? He said he was 50 in the introduction thread. The same one that I introduced myself in. He's just acting like a mid teen by comparing the action taken on AIDS to Ebola just to relieve pressure off of obama.

(10-17-2014 12:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Except the two bear no similarities. Obama is culpable for this b/c he won't do the job he can do: ban air traffic.

Should Reagan have closed air traffic from Africa to protect against the spread of HIV? I mean, the transmission factor here isn't completely dissimilar.

C'mon, of course it is.

A. Ebola has been known about for how long? Look at the stuff Mach listed, he's been "involved" with it for years, I heard about I think in a Time magazine probably in the early 80's.

B. HIV-AIDS was essentially unknown at the time. We didn't have global news, really. Some people in remote areas of Africa had some weird disease, no one knew what it was, where it came from, how it started or much about how it was spread.

To this day we don't really know how it arrived here. The last I read about their trying to wind this back was (I believe, it's been a while) some flight steward guy that contracted it overseas somewhere, maybe Africa, and landed in the Twin Cities. I think they called him patient X or something like that and the story went that he was either extremely "promiscuous" and ran around giving it to as many as 100 or more people himself, OR he knew he had some kind of a death sentence and was hell bent on taking out as many people with him as he could.

Now, how would closing airports to and from Africa at that point have done anything?

And we've had this idiotic argument before. If you were any older than about 10 in 1980++ and weren't aware of, educated about, and knew ALLLL the dirty little secrets about HIV-AIDS and what to do, what NOT to do, then you were either willfully ignorant or monumentally irresponsible.

No one is trying to get ebola. AIDS, yea, many actively were. IOW's all the Presidential addresses in the world would have changed about zip in the spread of AIDS.

this is a very good point about why we should not compare ebola to AIDS, however it doesn't help reagan's case. because HIV/AIDS was so new that meant we should have spent even more of our resources trying to figure it out.

the book you are referencing is called "and the band played on" it is actually very accurate except for the canadian flight attendant theory. that patient was only a "patient zero" cluster study done by the CDC to prove the virus was transmitted sexually. new evidence after the book came out showed that HIV/AIDS has been in the US since as early as 1969.

on a side note the book was made into a movie of the same name in 1992 (which has a 100% rating on RT). it's opening scene is WHO workers fighting the initial ebola outbreak in 1977. it specifically states "it was a sign of things to come" and accurately predicts the notion that Ebola & AIDS would be viewed as the 1A & 1B viral health crisis of this era.

I can't believe I am reading some of this schit from the left.

Fact: you can catch Ebola on a bus
Fact: you can't catch AIDS on a bus

(10-17-2014 12:37 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  And we've had this idiotic argument before. If you were any older than about 10 in 1980++ and weren't aware of, educated about, and knew ALLLL the dirty little secrets about HIV-AIDS and what to do, what NOT to do, then you were either willfully ignorant or monumentally irresponsible.

I can remember in the early/mid 1980's people being concerned they could get AIDS by going to the barber (if they got knicked after a gay person got knicked). People didn't understand HIV at all.

All I'm saying that blaming the President for following the recommendations of the so-called "experts" in the field is ridiculous. On both counts.

Yes, and we've known quite a lot about Ebola for 30 years or more. See the difference now?

I do tend to agree with your premise, that "blaming" either for the disease in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. BUT, allowing it into this Country when we DO know what we know about it, and clearly being ill-prepared on so many fronts is inexcusable.

Now we have some political hack and lawyer to be the czar to figure all this out. Another fine decision in a long line of good ones...

Tone deaf doesn't begin to describe it, wonder how much Mr. Klain has donated to his new "boss".

(10-17-2014 12:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Except the two bear no similarities. Obama is culpable for this b/c he won't do the job he can do: ban air traffic.

Should Reagan have closed air traffic from Africa to protect against the spread of HIV? I mean, the transmission factor here isn't completely dissimilar.

C'mon, of course it is.

A. Ebola has been known about for how long? Look at the stuff Mach listed, he's been "involved" with it for years, I heard about I think in a Time magazine probably in the early 80's.

B. HIV-AIDS was essentially unknown at the time. We didn't have global news, really. Some people in remote areas of Africa had some weird disease, no one knew what it was, where it came from, how it started or much about how it was spread.

To this day we don't really know how it arrived here. The last I read about their trying to wind this back was (I believe, it's been a while) some flight steward guy that contracted it overseas somewhere, maybe Africa, and landed in the Twin Cities. I think they called him patient X or something like that and the story went that he was either extremely "promiscuous" and ran around giving it to as many as 100 or more people himself, OR he knew he had some kind of a death sentence and was hell bent on taking out as many people with him as he could.

Now, how would closing airports to and from Africa at that point have done anything?

And we've had this idiotic argument before. If you were any older than about 10 in 1980++ and weren't aware of, educated about, and knew ALLLL the dirty little secrets about HIV-AIDS and what to do, what NOT to do, then you were either willfully ignorant or monumentally irresponsible.

No one is trying to get ebola. AIDS, yea, many actively were. IOW's all the Presidential addresses in the world would have changed about zip in the spread of AIDS.

this is a very good point about why we should not compare ebola to AIDS, however it doesn't help reagan's case. because HIV/AIDS was so new that meant we should have spent even more of our resources trying to figure it out.

"Our" resources?

And who are you to prioritize for someone else?

Finally, the only thing we needed to figure out was don't have gay sex.

(10-17-2014 12:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yes, and we've known quite a lot about Ebola for 30 years or more. See the difference now?

I do tend to agree with your premise, that "blaming" either for the disease in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. BUT, allowing it into this Country when we DO know what we know about it, and clearly being ill-prepared on so many fronts is inexcusable.

Ok, so couldn't we blame it on every President for the past 35-40 years for not doing a better job? The CDC has been studying this for years, the responsibility for mistakes is on them.

(10-17-2014 12:33 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:23 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Would I be a bigot for blaming it on gays? They brought it back with them. Could have quarantined all homosexuals.

How do you know that? HIV can be spread through shared needles, heterosexual sex, blood transfusions... it isn't just gay sex.

Because most AIDS/HIV victims are gay so there must be lots of them on drugs or transfusing blood.

<<Rewind 33 years

On June 5, 1981, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), describing cases of a rare lung infection, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), in five young, previously healthy, gay men in Los Angeles. All the men have other unusual infections as well, indicating that their immune systems are not working; two have already died by the time the report is published. This edition of the MMWR marks the first official reporting of what will become known as the AIDS epidemic.

On July 3, same year, the New York Times reports on cases of Kaposi’s Sarcoma affecting 41 gay men Exit Disclaimer in New York and California.

By year-end, there is a cumulative total of 270 reported cases of severe immune deficiency among gay men, and 121 of those individuals have died.

Fast Forward to present>>

78% of AIDS/HIV victims are gay men.


Its a trend that never changes.

(10-17-2014 01:00 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 12:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yes, and we've known quite a lot about Ebola for 30 years or more. See the difference now?

I do tend to agree with your premise, that "blaming" either for the disease in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. BUT, allowing it into this Country when we DO know what we know about it, and clearly being ill-prepared on so many fronts is inexcusable.

Ok, so couldn't we blame it on every President for the past 35-40 years for not doing a better job? The CDC has been studying this for years, the responsibility for mistakes is on them.

Willful ignorance.

What causes that in a person?

(10-17-2014 01:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  78% of AIDS/HIV victims are gay men.

So how do the other 22% of people get it? Like I said, it isn't just gay sex.

(10-17-2014 01:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Willful ignorance.

What causes that in a person?

According to some it is racism.

Shutting down the flights to/from those countries won't stop those people from finding a way here. They'll go through other means to find their way into this country.

Once again, I'll leave it up to the experts on the disease, not scaremongerers.

(10-17-2014 01:07 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 01:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  78% of AIDS/HIV victims are gay men.

So how do the other 22% of people get it? Like I said, it isn't just gay sex.

Drug use. Botched blood transfusions.

(10-17-2014 01:07 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 01:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  78% of AIDS/HIV victims are gay men.

So how do the other 22% of people get it? Like I said, it isn't just gay sex.

Well no, mlb, of course it's not. I don't know what all you can shoot up, but I'm guessing being a drug addict, a sex fiend, or gay are all your highest risks. Avoiding those will give you a slim to none chance at catching it. Shaking the hand of an Ebola patient can give you Ebola. The threat is much higher and way more of a threat to humans than aids. dbackjon is just trying to take the attention off of obama with this thread because even liberals are beginning to turn on the president and it scares our two resident moron jons on this forum.

(10-17-2014 01:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 01:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Willful ignorance.

What causes that in a person?

According to some it is racism.

Shutting down the flights to/from those countries won't stop those people from finding a way here. They'll go through other means to find their way into this country.

Once again, I'll leave it up to the experts on the disease, not scaremongerers.

How else are they going to get here from Liberia? That's a hell of a swim or a row.