Changing The GOP * hilarious NEWSWEEK opinion* linked from MSNBC

www.newsweek.com...

this guy has so many double standards its just plain disgusting. let me quote some.

Michael Steele's color really shouldn't matter. Yet it does. Virtually every story on his election as chair of the Republican National Committee led with the fact that he is the first African-American ever in that job

^ im sorry, the only time we are allowed to mention that someone is the first african american in a certain job is when it is barack obama.

Part of why it matters is that the Republican Party has been on the wrong side of racial progress for well over a century.

the civil rights act bill in the 60's had more republicans voting for the bill than democrats did. dam those evil republicans for giving blacks power to make a difference.

But sticking your thumb in the president's eye is hardly equivalent to crafting a sound fiscal stimulus policy

how dare republicans speak out against the 800 billion "stimulus" bill that prevents STD's

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Swatman]

Originally posted by Swatman
how dare republicans speak out against the 800 billion "stimulus" bill that prevents STD's

Isn't this a bit disingenuous?

I mean, 400 mil is earmarked for STD's. But you make it sound as if 800 bil is the amount. And frankly, just because they pump 400 mil in does not guarantee ANY STD prevention.

It may lead to methods of prevention...and it may not. The latter being more likely, given that the money is likely to keep coming as long as they are "nearly there," as opposed to successful.

It is for this (sensationalist) comment I look with a grain of salt at the remainder of your post.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by Amaterasu]

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Swatman
how dare republicans speak out against the 800 billion "stimulus" bill that prevents STD's

Isn't this a bit disingenuous?

I mean, 400 mil is earmarked for STD's. But you make it sound as if 800 bil is the amount. And frankly, just because they pump 400 mil in does not guarantee ANY STD prevention.

It may lead to methods of prevention...and it may not. The latter being more likely, given that the money is likely to keep coming as long as they are "nearly there," as opposed to successful.

It is for this (sensationalist) comment I look with a grain of salt at the remainder of your post.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by Amaterasu]

and please tell me, how does STD prevention help stimulate the economy? please dont fall for the BS and pelase deny ignorance

reply to post by Swatman


Well if more of us are alive we can make more of us to buy stuff in this capitalist economy.

Not to mention: 400 mil pays allot of salaries, buys allot of lab equipment, pays office space and office supplies.

Direct spending of money for any area flows outward, unlike corporate tax creds that only go into the pockets of the top 1%.

Sides, you make stopping diseases sound like a bad thing. I mean, its not a bridge in Alaska or anything but still.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Not to mention: 400 mil pays allot of salaries, buys allot of lab equipment, pays office space and office supplies.

Direct spending of money for any area flows outward, unlike corporate tax creds that only go into the pockets of the top 1%.

Sides, you make stopping diseases sound like a bad thing. I mean, its not a bridge in Alaska or anything but still.

i have no problem with STD prevention. the PROBLEM is it is being put in a STIMULUS package. this is asanine and should be thrown right out.

Originally posted by Swatman
i have no problem with STD prevention. the PROBLEM is it is being put in a STIMULUS package. this is asanine and should be thrown right out.

They should go a step further and just throw out the entire stimulus bill. They're spending trillions of dollars that we don't have and the end result is going to be massive inflation. It's probably going to be less than a year before it hits...and it's going to hurt. Those of you who are complaining that minimum wage still isn't enough even after the boost...it's going to be impossible to survive on $20 an hour once this new money makes it's way into circulation.

From: this link

In a section of the plan that includes funding for the Centers for Disease Control, the bill states that "not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director." In an interview on CBS' "Early Show" on Jan. 29, the day after the House passed the stimulus package, anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi how $335 million in STD prevention would stimulate the economy. Said Pelosi: "I'll tell you how....I'm a big believer in prevention. And we have -- there's a part of the bill, on the health side of it, that is about prevention. It's about it being less expensive to the states to do these prevention measures." We note that while the NRCC press release specifically calls out House Democrats for the STD spending, the Senate version of the bill also includes it -- in fact, slightly more. A portion of the stimulus plan approved by the Senate Appropriations committee on Jan. 27 states that "not less than $400,000,000 shall be transferred to the CDC for an additional amount for the screening and prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV." A committee report on the bill backs up the HIV and STD Prevention spending with this analysis: "CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new STD infections occur annually in the United States, with 1 in 4 teenage girls currently infected. This epidemic is estimated to cost the U.S. healthcare system $15,000,000,000 annually, all of which is preventable. The Committee has included $400,000,000 for testing and prevention of these conditions. The Committee intends that funds be used for grants to States for testing activities, and the prevention of STD infections like chlamydia that have been increasing dramatically in recent years."

In a nutshell it helps because it reduces the healthcare load of new infections.

But Im wondering, is there anything other than this 0.04% amount in the bill you find asinine? Or is this only the most inflamitory?

Originally posted by Swatman
^ im sorry, the only time we are allowed to mention that someone is the first african american in a certain job is when it is barack obama.

No, its as if any african american getting a position these days, its some reason to do with their skin color. No acknowledgment of the individual or the circumstances. That is the nature of the rightwing fringe. That is what needs to be changed.

the civil rights act bill in the 60's had more republicans voting for the bill than democrats did. dam those evil republicans for giving blacks power to make a difference.

Yes and during the 60's the majority of the republican voters dissaffected one side and democrats likewise. What does that say?

how dare republicans speak out against the 800 billion "stimulus" bill that prevents STD's

How about how dare anybody question the president over his war of lies. You know, the $200 million a day war? The war thats far beyond this bill.

Atleast the Democrats are thinking up solutions following the mess from republicans in power. All I hear is critical garbage coming out from the mouths of rightwingers who should be thinking up urgent solutions.

Im give the dems their term in office. The repuglicans and their ron paul fakers had their chance to once again prove the "fiscal" myth, and once again failed.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by southern_Guardian]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

Originally posted by Swatman
^ im sorry, the only time we are allowed to mention that someone is the first african american in a certain job is when it is barack obama.

No, its as if any african american getting a position these days, its some reason to do with their skin color. No acknowledgment of the individual or the circumstances. That is the nature of the rightwing fringe. That is what needs to be changed.

sorry this is not a right wing issue. the Clinton NEws newtowk and MSNBC make it a point to state obama is the first black president, but they also complain when republicans do it.


and no the democrats are not coming up with a solution to our problem, the only thing they are doing is getting all the money to spend on ideas that they have had for decades but could never get them passed.

The fact that the MSM mentions his appointment as a 'First', is racial baiting. And then saying that Republicans have been on the wrong side is stupid... Was Lincolon Not a republican?

Originally posted by Cio88
The fact that the MSM mentions his appointment as a 'First', is racial baiting. And then saying that Republicans have been on the wrong side is stupid... Was Lincolon Not a republican?

i guess he wasnt if we listen to the idiot that made the article

Originally posted by Swatman
and please tell me, how does STD prevention help stimulate the economy? please dont fall for the BS and pelase deny ignorance

Ahhhh. Sorry. Was taking life too seriously. [grin]

Another line, just for drill!

Oh, and another one, just to be sure. [wink]

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Swatman
how dare republicans speak out against the 800 billion "stimulus" bill that prevents STD's

It is for this (sensationalist) comment I look with a grain of salt at the remainder of your post.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by Amaterasu]

Ummm ... that WAS the end of his post. And you conveniently ignored the other two very relevant arguments brought up. You get no star.

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

Originally posted by Swatman
^ im sorry, the only time we are allowed to mention that someone is the first african american in a certain job is when it is barack obama.

No, its as if any african american getting a position these days, its some reason to do with their skin color. No acknowledgment of the individual or the circumstances. That is the nature of the rightwing fringe. That is what needs to be changed.

Oh really? Then how do you explain those exit polls which clearly showed a great sampling of Barack Obama's supporters didn't know any of the issues he stood for? I suppose you think they were all Republicans who defected? Please.