Gotta love the wisdom that Bush brought to the table.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Gotta love the wisdom that Bush brought to the table.

2009-11-02 15:35:37

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7037|USA

Zimmer wrote:
lowing wrote:
Zimmer wrote:
lol.

Dream on sunshine. It will never get eliminated. Stop living in your pathetic dream world and accept it's going to be in this world until we die. Unless you want to eradicate everyone with it? If you don't accept it as something that is now part of our lives, then you shouldn't be on this planet either.

Many people got it by accident, and now you tell me that they should be socially excluded and contained because of it?

You can't tell me that the numbers are increasing, so stop with your bullshit.
Wait a sec, a page ago it was drug abusers and sex fiends that got AIDS, now you are telling me that "many people get it be accident" and yet you feel no steps should be implimented to stop it or keep it out? The second you figure out which line of bullshit you want to pass on, get back with me

Everyone keeping track seems to disagree with you, don't know what else to tell ya. Maybe get a clue?

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Oh dear. Does it say anywhere there INCREASING IN THE US? No. It's increasing in Africa, and it's pretty doubtful that they even get Visa's without AIDS.

Where does the "people getting it by accident" not coincide with Drug Abusers and sex fiends? Neither comment is correlated.... You can be a drug abuser and get it by accident. Jesus. You try and pick something out of an argument and fail.

Find me a proper study that shows that AIDS is increasing in the US. Otherwise... STFU.

If one person gets AIDS in the US then that is one MORE, not 1 less people getting infected.

You made the distinction between drug abusers and sex fiends ( who deserve it) and everyone else. So if now drug users and sex fiends are like everyone else why the distinction?

Do me a favor drop your cyber courage chest beating will you? It is no longer cute

2009-11-02 17:19:02

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

You made the distinction between drug abusers and sex fiends ( who deserve it) and everyone else. So if now drug users and sex fiends are like everyone else why the distinction?

Of course, using drugs and having sex are capital crimes.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-02 17:27:14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6987|132 and Bush

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-11-02 22:59:00

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7061|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:
Zimmer wrote:
lowing wrote:
Wait a sec, a page ago it was drug abusers and sex fiends that got AIDS, now you are telling me that "many people get it be accident" and yet you feel no steps should be implimented to stop it or keep it out? The second you figure out which line of bullshit you want to pass on, get back with me

Everyone keeping track seems to disagree with you, don't know what else to tell ya. Maybe get a clue?

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Oh dear. Does it say anywhere there INCREASING IN THE US? No. It's increasing in Africa, and it's pretty doubtful that they even get Visa's without AIDS.

Where does the "people getting it by accident" not coincide with Drug Abusers and sex fiends? Neither comment is correlated.... You can be a drug abuser and get it by accident. Jesus. You try and pick something out of an argument and fail.

Find me a proper study that shows that AIDS is increasing in the US. Otherwise... STFU.
If one person gets AIDS in the US then that is one MORE, not 1 less people getting infected.

You made the distinction between drug abusers and sex fiends ( who deserve it) and everyone else. So if now drug users and sex fiends are like everyone else why the distinction?

Do me a favor drop your cyber courage chest beating will you? It is no longer cute

I notice that you conveniently left out homosexuals from the list.

edit: but kmarion didn't.

Last edited by Spark (2009-11-02 22:59:20)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-11-03 00:25:37

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6967|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:

I believe it was Dilbert who pointed out that Australia does the same thing.

My point was less focused on HIV specifically and more focused on the class of "communicable disease"--MANY countries limit immigration based on that criteria.
I don't doubt that they do - but the link does not demonstrate that to be the case.
Read the highlighted portion. The link absolutely did demonstrate that, which was the intent of that particular link.

The second link posted was showing that visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it.

Your link outlined that could be a potential cause of not getting a visa. That would still be the case if it were unique to the US (which I'm not saying it is). It did not show, explicitly, that "visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it".

2009-11-03 01:19:34

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7142|Scotland

Kmarion wrote:
http://i34.tinypic.com/29moehh.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/if299c.jpg
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Lowing wont be coming back any time soon into this thread...

2009-11-03 01:52:38

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7107|Sydney, Australia

Zimmer wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
http://i34.tinypic.com/29moehh.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/if299c.jpg
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Lowing wont be coming back any time soon into this thread...

Please Zim, you give him too much credit. He'll just ignore that, and continue to attack insignificant parts of your argument while neglecting the overall picture.

2009-11-03 05:36:17

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6924|Long Island, New York

mcminty wrote:
Zimmer wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
http://i34.tinypic.com/29moehh.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/if299c.jpg
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Lowing wont be coming back any time soon into this thread...
Please Zim, you give him too much credit. He'll just ignore that, and continue to attack insignificant parts of your argument while neglecting the overall picture.

Just like he ignored Kmarion's first post about how it was Bush that started to enact this.

God forbid he talk about Bush's "idocy" though.

2009-11-03 05:39:32

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7107|Sydney, Australia

Poseidon wrote:
mcminty wrote:
Zimmer wrote:
Lowing wont be coming back any time soon into this thread...
Please Zim, you give him too much credit. He'll just ignore that, and continue to attack insignificant parts of your argument while neglecting the overall picture.
Just like he ignored Kmarion's first post about how it was Bush that started to enact this.

God forbid he talk about Bush's "idocy" though.

In light of the information Kerry provided about Bush, it would seem appropriate to change the title of the thread.

2009-11-03 05:42:09

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7057|UK

doooooooooooooooooooooo eeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttt.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2009-11-03 05:45:07

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7107|Sydney, Australia

<3 ya Lowing

2009-11-03 06:05:13

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7037|USA

Zimmer wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
http://i34.tinypic.com/29moehh.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/if299c.jpg
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Lowing wont be coming back any time soon into this thread...

Those are the stats I was looking at, and what do those stats tell us. That the number of newly infected people are at 40,000. Sorry to burst your bubble, that is not LESS people that is MORE people and every year.

Also, the damn disease does not make a distinction between homsexuality and straight. It is an equal opportunity destroyer.

Again, even with the ever so slight drop in the RATE people are gettting infected ( not less people), do you really think opening up our borders to this disease is supposed to improve our odds?

As for the Bush thing, never heard of him enacting this, if I had I would still be against it.

2009-11-03 06:10:00

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7037|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
You made the distinction between drug abusers and sex fiends ( who deserve it) and everyone else. So if now drug users and sex fiends are like everyone else why the distinction?
Of course, using drugs and having sex are capital crimes.

Stop trying back out of your argument that this was a disease only for drug users and promiscuous individuals.

2009-11-03 06:16:39

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7142|Scotland

/facepalm

Yet he still comes back.

You don't seem to get it through that thick brain of yours, do you? Of course there are new cases, but it's been less new cases every year. So quite your bullshit and trying to twist words, because it's just not working. You aren't going to eradicate AIDS, people are still going to get it every year and people are going to die from it every year. Accept it.

Can you read graphs? It clearly shows that 40,000 newly infected is less than 80,000 in 1992. Jesus.

Also, did you read the shit below the graph?

"Since 200, the annual number of AIDS diagnoses have been relatively constant."

Improve your odds of what? Of surviving the disease? It's not ever going to end the world or even cause major hysteria. AIDS is more under control than cancer or Hep C is. Yes, people still get infected each year and yes, people die each year, but the same applies for Malaria.

You have no odds to improve. AIDS is going to be here for a very long time or possibly forever. Accept it like any other disease. You will NOT eradicate it from the US, and closing your borders off will not help either way.

2009-11-03 06:30:49

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7037|USA

Zimmer wrote:
/facepalm

Yet he still comes back.

You don't seem to get it through that thick brain of yours, do you? Of course there are new cases, but it's been less new cases every year. So quite your bullshit and trying to twist words, because it's just not working. You aren't going to eradicate AIDS, people are still going to get it every year and people are going to die from it every year. Accept it.

Can you read graphs? It clearly shows that 40,000 newly infected is less than 80,000 in 1992. Jesus.

Also, did you read the shit below the graph?

"Since 200, the annual number of AIDS diagnoses have been relatively constant."

Improve your odds of what? Of surviving the disease? It's not ever going to end the world or even cause major hysteria. AIDS is more under control than cancer or Hep C is. Yes, people still get infected each year and yes, people die each year, but the same applies for Malaria.

You have no odds to improve. AIDS is going to be here for a very long time or possibly forever. Accept it like any other disease. You will NOT eradicate it from the US, and closing your borders off will not help either way.

You are advocating, socially accepting an infectious deadly disease into our society as cultural, progressive and normal. It ain't. You are suggesting that we all just relax and take it in. No thanks.

Your flippant lackadaisical attitude toward this disease is exactly what is going to get the RATE of people getting infected to go up.

Also , I coulda swore I asked to stop with the cyber courage routine.

2009-11-03 06:52:02

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7142|Scotland

Nice way to completely avoid the fact that you're wrong about statistics and move the pointer on how I feel about the disease.

I'm sorry, but it's not Malaria or Cancer or Tuberculosis, where you can't really choose if you get them or not. It's infectious to SOME EXTENT. It canbe prevented at all costs with protection, not taking drugs etc. It's not a disease that can just take the world by storm one day and kill half the population.

I understand it's serious, and so does everyone else. It still doesn't justify a country closing it's borders to anybody that has it. We aren't in a fucking quarantine because of it.

Yes, it is progressive and normal . We've lived with diseases since the start of time, and we will always have them in your society. You either accept them or don't be part of society. We live in a world where there will never be a "disease free" society, so stop being blind towards it.

Take what in? The fact that AIDS is all around us? Yes. Take it in. Because it's a FACT, and unless you exterminate every human being with AIDS on this planet, it's going to remain that way. Just like cancer.

2009-11-03 07:07:56

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7107|Sydney, Australia

lowing wrote:
Also , I coulda swore I asked to stop with the cyber courage routine.

Lol..

2009-11-03 07:13:12

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7037|USA

Zimmer wrote:
Nice way to completely avoid the fact that you're wrong about statistics and move the pointer on how I feel about the disease.

I'm sorry, but it's not Malaria or Cancer or Tuberculosis, where you can't really choose if you get them or not. It's infectious to SOME EXTENT. It canbe prevented at all costs with protection, not taking drugs etc. It's not a disease that can just take the world by storm one day and kill half the population.

I understand it's serious, and so does everyone else. It still doesn't justify a country closing it's borders to anybody that has it. We aren't in a fucking quarantine because of it.

Yes, it is progressive and normal . We've lived with diseases since the start of time, and we will always have them in your society. You either accept them or don't be part of society. We live in a world where there will never be a "disease free" society, so stop being blind towards it.

Take what in? The fact that AIDS is all around us? Yes. Take it in. Because it's a FACT, and unless you exterminate every human being with AIDS on this planet, it's going to remain that way. Just like cancer.

I haven't avoided anything, you are saying less people contract AIDS every year, that is not so, the fact is 40,0000 MORE people contract it every year. you dismiss this number as irrelevant, I do not. Also, there was a 15% RATE increase in the number of people getting infected from 2006 to 2007, with 10 percent of new infections being from drug use, kinda also kills your theory that AIDS is only for drug addicts.
It is infectious to a great extent, unless of course you think the several million people that have it or are going to die from it, wanted it and caught it purposely.

Again, I will let you and your kids, ( assuming you are even old enough to have any or remember life without AIDS I am betting you are not ) expose yourself to it all ya want.

I am also wondering why, based on your logic that only the drug users are getting infected and "those that deserve it", you would want to open your borders to such irresponsible people anyway?

I am also gunna add, your behavior in this thread ( as well as other mods) leads me to believe it is slim pickings out there to find decent mods who first practice their own rules of this forum. Oh well, it must be the economy.

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-03 15:27:48)

2009-11-03 09:04:02

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6797|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

I don't doubt that they do - but the link does not demonstrate that to be the case.
Read the highlighted portion. The link absolutely did demonstrate that, which was the intent of that particular link.

The second link posted was showing that visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it.
Your link outlined that could be a potential cause of not getting a visa. That would still be the case if it were unique to the US (which I'm not saying it is). It did not show, explicitly, that "visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it".

Did you look at the entirety of the link, ffs? Not just the words, but the visas that were shown for examples? They were from all over the world.

The article does need cleanup, but it is clearly intended to show visa requirements from around the globe, not just the US. If you look at the rest of the article, it is clear that its content is applicable beyond the US, thus making the communicable disease entry applicable beyond the US.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-11-03 12:17:41

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6967|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Read the highlighted portion. The link absolutely did demonstrate that, which was the intent of that particular link.

The second link posted was showing that visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it.
Your link outlined that could be a potential cause of not getting a visa. That would still be the case if it were unique to the US (which I'm not saying it is). It did not show, explicitly, that "visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it".
Did you look at the entirety of the link, ffs? Not just the words, but the visas that were shown for examples? They were from all over the world.

The article does need cleanup, but it is clearly intended to show visa requirements from around the globe, not just the US. If you look at the rest of the article, it is clear that its content is applicable beyond the US, thus making the communicable disease entry applicable beyond the US.

I'm not claiming that the link isn't about visas from around the world or is specific to the US.

There are clearly samples of all sorts of visas from around the world there.

BUT there is nothing that states that it (being infected with a communicable disease) is not exclusive to the US. It says it is a potential reason that a visa could be denied. That would be true even if it were exclusive to the US.

2009-11-03 12:45:34

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6797|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Your link outlined that could be a potential cause of not getting a visa. That would still be the case if it were unique to the US (which I'm not saying it is). It did not show, explicitly, that "visa provision in multiple countries had an infectious disease aspect to it".
Did you look at the entirety of the link, ffs? Not just the words, but the visas that were shown for examples? They were from all over the world.

The article does need cleanup, but it is clearly intended to show visa requirements from around the globe, not just the US. If you look at the rest of the article, it is clear that its content is applicable beyond the US, thus making the communicable disease entry applicable beyond the US.
I'm not claiming that the link isn't about visas from around the world or is specific to the US.

There are clearly samples of all sorts of visas from around the world there.

BUT there is nothing that states that it (being infected with a communicable disease) is not exclusive to the US. It says it is a potential reason that a visa could be denied. That would be true even if it were exclusive to the US.

And it has been verified that it is not exclusive to the US by someone who does not live in the US.

So just what are you on about?

2009-11-03 17:27:37

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
You made the distinction between drug abusers and sex fiends ( who deserve it) and everyone else. So if now drug users and sex fiends are like everyone else why the distinction?
Of course, using drugs and having sex are capital crimes.
Stop trying back out of your argument that this was a disease only for drug users and promiscuous individuals.

Wut? Where did I say that?

Fuck Israel

2009-11-03 20:01:48

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5972

Who changed the title?

2009-11-03 20:03:01

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7107|Sydney, Australia

Macbeth wrote:
Who changed the title?

If you read the above posts, who do you think...

2009-11-03 20:05:40

#100

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5972

mcminty wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Who changed the title?
If you read the above posts, who do you think...

Meh didn't feel like reading through all the bullshit.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Gotta love the wisdom that Bush brought to the table.

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Gotta love the wisdom that Bush brought to the table.

Zimmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Board footer