Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (15209)	8/28/2001 8:24:21 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Respond to of 59480

I agree with everything you are saying but what I agree with most is that the Federal government has no business funding research of any kind. When they start allocating and deciding which disease is important based on the effectiveness of their lobby group, well it is just one more way they have turned themselves into whores in my opinion. Because it generally boils down to how much grease the pigs are getting towards their war chest.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (15209)	8/28/2001 8:38:10 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 59480

Good points Jorj.... JLA

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (15209)	8/28/2001 9:57:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

The fact that it is a contagious disease should also have some bearing on the priority as well. It seems to me that this is the key point about AIDS. Whether or not it's the government's business to fund medical research, there is greater legitimacy to the government's interest in a communicable disease than a non-communicable one, and particularly a deadly communicable disease. Who is lobbying for which disease is a distraction. Karen

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (15209)	8/28/2001 2:09:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

This comment is probably going to draw lots of fire even on this thread and is VERY politically incorrect, but: The fact that it is a contagious disease should also have some bearing on the priority as well. And yet, at least in this country, isn't AIDS (largely) a self-inflicted wound? It may be contagious, but it;'s not all THAT contagious. (Mostly) you've got to engage in known dangerous activities to get it. It's not like the flu or chickenpox where a person can be enjoying a normal lifestyle and still become a victim. The (Mostly) and (largely) are because of cases you like mention. Howard Gann here in CA is another example; he got it from a blood transfusion. Yet these people can be looked on as the victims of those who helped establish the disease here in the US. Do you think it would ever have gained a foothold without them? I am against government funding of research for cancer, heart disease, parkinson's and AIDS. That isn't the government's job. <i/i> And that we agree on. The argument can be made that it is authorized by promote the general Welfare But that can be considered to authorize almost anything. And has been. But if the government hands out $$$ for medical research, why shouldn't the people who care about AIDS do everything that they can to draw attention to their situation? They certainly have the right to do so. But don't those legislators have a duty to use scarce resources in a manner that gives the most benefit to the most people? Considering that cancer, heart disease, and strokes still kill far more people, shouldn't they get far more funding?