Changing The GOP * hilarious NEWSWEEK opinion* linked from MSNBC, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 3-2-2009 @ 05:52 PM by Swatman
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]


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 07:36 PM by Tentickles
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.


reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 12:39 AM by lordtyp0
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?

Pages:     ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 109 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 10 hours ago, 94 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 9 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 50 replies