Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

Who in the election will fight for our cause?

I didn't know how to title this post...  

Without getting into a big political debate, can someone tell me, which candidates, on each side, will best be helping the Hep C research funding?    It doesn't matter to me, whether you are saying Democrat/Republican/Indep., or whatever, I'm just curious if anybody knows from past history, researching this, or anything like that???   I'm not saying which party I'm affliated with, that doesn't matter in the general election anyway because you can vote across party lines in that election if you so choose.    Anyway, I'm really curious about this.  I'm also wondering if there's some website that might tell me where the various candidates stand in their past support of HIV, since I figure that if they have a good history with supporting HIV/AIDS research that they might care about HCV.  Anyway, any info would be appreciated.  I hope that this will not end up being a debate because that's not what I'm looking for.

Happy Holidays everyone.

Susan
340 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
144210 tn?1273088782
Economics 101 and well said. I have convinced the old timers I work with that a JFK democrat is fairly equivalant to a common day republican. That is not why they changed there vote though, they claim they can not support socialism, which is what the democratic party has become.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4c, i lived in california in the 70's/80's and yes I remember well when the "loons" hit the street.  but, if that is the worst you can come up with about Reagan.....  One of most disturbing things to me is liberal judges who let pedophiles out on the street. And the ACLU that defends these scum free of charge.  Why does the left villify O'Rielly? Because he exposes these judges and goes after them.
Helpful - 1
Avatar universal
The author above in the piece on poverty left out some very obvious facts. When this happens credibility for that person is diminished in my mind and I find it harder to believe anything else they have to say.

Of course this is the most people living in poverty since 1973.That should be a no-brainer. Since 1973, we have added 16 million illegal immigrants. This affects the number living in poverty substantially Then lets take population growth---from 1970-present we have added 89 million legal citizens. With the largest US population you would expect to see the larger numbers in all economic classes.
It is no coincidence that some of the states that have the fastest increasing poverty rate are the border states.

As for Hagel--He has been a closet liberal for 10 years. No one on either side of the aisle cares what he says or does.

"That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years."

This of course mean nothing unless we know just how far has it fallen ? Looking at median incomes for a family of four after inflation the growth line is rather static. This author does not address the tax refunds that an average family of four realize now under Bush's tax cuts either. Tax refunds are not counted as earned income so to get a true number reflecting the median household income the tax rates would have to be consulted and income adjusted. The middle class got the highest percentage reduction resulting in about $6000 in avg tax savings for a family of 4 . After adjusted for inflation, the median income actually rose, not declined when tax savings are counted.
Citing a book is not a very good source but it is an improvement. The problem with books is you can find one to support every view. Too many authors have open, or even worse , hidden agendas. When going for financial numbers its just as easy to find the published data and link to it.

Here are yearly inflation numbers.
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/Misc/Inflation.html

The median family income figures by year are available at census.gov.

You can then see for yourself with exactness as to how bad we've done during these 50 months of continued economic growth.

The cost of previous wars should have no bearing on the war we are fighting. What is the price you would put on the continued existence of the United States of America as we know it? I'm not being melodramatic. The stakes for the war we are in are incredibly high. Some folks have no problem with our surrendering to the enemy and leaving. I'm sure that wouldn't embolden them one bit. They just kicked the Great Satan's ***!. I'm sure that wouldn't help their recruitment (Join the group that kicked America's *** !) And I'm certain that if we just leave them alone they will play nice and just leave us alone. uh-huh.
Helpful - 1
Avatar universal
No one's arguing that mentally ill people were not released, obviously they were (as already discussed ad nauseum). But returning to your original assertion that this was all Reagan's doing in the overly simplistic manner you did is obviously incorrect. According to your own source above it says:

1. The Lanterman Petris Short Act had BIPARTISAN support. "Bipartisan" means that members of both political parties approved of it and wished for it to be passed. This of course means that democrats approved of it and helped pass it into law, not just Ronald Reagan. (remember that governors, like presidents, are not dictators in the US - they must work in a bipartisan manner to get things done)

2. "The intent was essentially benevolent." Benevolent means it was well meaning and was thought at the time to be a good solution.

3. Here's what else it says in your link: "Five years earlier, Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest had aroused the nation to the plight of patients—including vagabonds, public drunks, misbehaving children, and impoverished elders—walled away against their will, drugged, shackled, shocked, lobotomized in antiquated public institutions where many languished indefinitely. (kinda like we already talked about, huh??)

LPS changed that. Under section 5150 of the act, only people who pose imminent danger to themselves or others, or who are unable to care for themselves, can be taken into custody for treatment and evaluation. And then they can be held for no more than three days without a hearing before a judge. (yep, also like we already talked about)

As an alternative to hospitalization, LPS required California’s counties to provide the services locally that were needed by people with mental illness. The state would assume 90 percent of the costs and the money would “follow the patients,” the legislature promised."  

So, lets review what this means based on the information you've provided. The LPS act was implemented by a bipartisan committee consisting of republicans AND democrats (i.e. not just Ronald Reagan dictatorially shutting down mental hospitals as you've suggested above). The plan was at its heart a "benevolent" alternative to the current system for the reasons described, namely to prevent warehousing people in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" asylums against their will. So the plan (by both democrats and republicans) was to simply restructure how the mentally ill would be taken care of in a manner that both kept these people from being incarcerated while still providing them with mental healthcare. Well, my goodness even if the idea wasn't executed as well as had been envisioned (or to your personal satisfaction), that's a far cry from the grotesquely oversimplified characterization you made above about how Reagan just shut down all the nuthouses and dumped the crazies onto the street, isn't it? What about the democrats who supported the LPS act? Aren't they also responsible? What about the issue concerning keeping people in nuthouses against their will?? Aren't those salient issues that Reagan along with the state democrats were at least attempting to rectify? According to the link you've provided above, obviously that's exactly what they were doing.

Furthermore, Ronald Reagan hasn't been California's governor for more than 30 YEARS! It says in your link above "But in 1973, budgetary pressures led lawmakers to cap the state outlay. Only cost-of-living increases have been applied during the intervening three decades—and not even those, most recently."  Ronald Reagan's term ended in '74, and the state of California has certainly had Democratic governors since then and quite obviously has had liberal politicians throughout its legislature (and some of them *very* liberal). Maybe you haven't heard but California is a largely democratic state (that's why they call it the "left coast"). For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone, even all these years later is patently absurd. You mean that all of the California voters, governors, and legislators since 1974 (a mere one year after budgetary pressures raised their head in '73) have had NO SAY in how the mental health system has and is being run to this day??? It's all Ronald Reagan's fault??? Good lord it defies the imagination that anyone could even imagine such a thing and take it seriously. And while we're at it, why do you suppose there were and continue to be these these tight budgetary constraints? Could it be because of excessive spending on all sorts of other social programs? Could it be that the voters and elected officials (that the voters put into office) within California simply haven't prioritized these issues? Certainly sounds like it to me, especially considering Reagan was re-elected in 1970 a coupla years after the LPS act was enacted anyway. I really dont know what your point is by blaming Reagan in the manner you are, it really doesn't make any sense.  ??????
Helpful - 1
Avatar universal
crazy!
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
01/10/08 Blood transfusion risk
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has identified that blood obtained from emergency donors in US military facilities (and potentially other coalition facilities) in Iraq and Afghanistan may not have been properly screened.

This means it is possible that some personnel who had a blood transfusion involving non-UK emergency donor panels may have been put at risk of some types of infection.

A special telephone service is available if you would like to speak to someone or get more information. The number is 0845 850 9850*. The service is available every day including weekends from 9am to 6pm.

Helpful - 0
163305 tn?1333668571
LOL,yes you are right. Everyone thinks someone else stinks.

But, I disagree with you about squat pooping or pooping over a hole. Its more natural, cleaner and helps if you are in some little place in Asia wondering why the toilet is just some porcelain oval  on the floor.

One more thing, tx left me pooped out.
Helpful - 0
148987 tn?1287805926
without any discussion of, or mention of......poop.

Well how is poop political, you may ask ? Well if you need to ask that, then you really don't know poop then do you ? Politics is a poopy business.It is filled with poopy people with poopy ideas who don't know poop about poop. But one thing is for sure. They all poop. Some of them have their poop together better than others. I imagine some have really runny lose poop, others poop diamonds or titanium.

Some think their poop doesn't stink but others disagree. No one really smells their own poop...wait...that's breath. No one ever smells their own breath but some peoples breath does smell like poop but they'd never know it which is kind of strange since their nose is right above their mouth.  

I think politicians should be required to talk about their poop. It shows that they are people just like us. Maybe Wolf Blitzer, when he takes a break from his sichyayshun room thing, could just blurt out in one of them debates, 'When was the last time you pooped, sir ?' Who knows, one of 'em might say, 'I need to poop right now...' I'd bet Dennis Kucinich has never pooped in his life. I don't think aliens poop. Or maybe he could ask one of them if they've ever had the poop scared out of them of if they have ever pooped their pants or how often they change their underwear or, like the Donald, they wear new underwear every day, which to me, is the surest sign of success but it's a little highbrow for me. I think if I were rich, I'd probably wear a pair of underwear twice, maybe even three times, before I gave them to good will.

I don't know, maybe I'm alone in pondering these things...I've just always wondered why poop was never on the table or up for discussion among the candidates since it's the only thing we really share in common. I wouldn't mind seeing an interview or two from their bathrooms, maybe while they are in the act of pooping, just to see how they handle stress 'n stuff. You know, see how tidy they are. I just can't see myself voting for someone who doesn't properly clean or is constipated. For example, ask them; do you use a bidet, strictly paper and if so, what kind, or perhaps moist towelettes. Hell for all we know one of 'em keeps a poop rag in the sink, like myself.  That guy would get my vote. I think good poop etiquette would go hand in hand, so to speak, with a good foreign policy.Think of the cultural differences. In the ME, they just squat over a hole, which I find barbaric and completely unacceptable. Which reminds me...my peace plan for the ME involves sit down toilets and more air conditioning. I think that would go far to change the mood over there. I know if I was all hot and sweaty and had to squat over a hole to poop I'd want to blow up something myself. Maybe even cut a few heads off.  I could run on the cool poop platform. Form a party. Give it a cool name like the pooper party and anyone who didn't join would be...yeah that's right.... a party pooper.

I dunno..these are just things I ponder late at night and early in the morning. Call me crazy.

Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
I agree with you about the news not getting here. I lived in Europe and visit there often.  The news is so different, we dont' hear half the stuff reported by European reporters! That must have been a nightmare seeing those heads....geez. And of course we didn't see it. The news is owned by a few people who control what we see.  

NY;  I love Clinton and would like Hillary to win. Not sure who I am for at this point. Did you watch the speeches yesterday at NH.  Hers was read off of notes, really cold. Obama's speech was electric and reminds me of the magic of when JFK spoke and campaigned. Actually if any of the three won, I would be happy!
Helpful - 0
233616 tn?1312787196
WWIII & 4....
and now you know why I suggested Big Bird : ))))))))))
lol
burn me once....


what I don't understand is if Regan emptied all the mental institutions why am I still here?????????                             (jk)
Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
Mike, I agree with you about borders. If there is such a threat what are we doing to control the borders?  I still agree with you about the insurgents coming into Iraq, where they hadn't been before. We know there are training camps on the Afgan and Pakistan border. Still don't get why we are not there in the numbers necessary to get them.  

Mr. Liver;  Wow,  Your tone is so much more tame.  It is easy to read your POV's and actually I could understand what you mean on some things.  I do agree with Mike though,  Please don't become Commander in Cheif! LOL
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
BTW, prior to the US "invasion" of Iraq, when the US newspapers were covering news about "poor" Chechen population completely mistreated by Russians.  During this time one English and French reporters were be-headed by Chechens -- even though these reporters were there with the exceptional intend to help Chechen population.  I didn't see this news in the US newspapers either -- but I have a copy in German.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Mike,

Very well said!
I have relatives in Eastern Europe --- they woke up one morning only to find 9 (nine!) policemen heads hanging on the trees in the center of the city (population of ~0.5 mil.)!!  I didn't see this news on the US news broadcast!!

The US Army should be increased at least to the size of the prior Clinton's reduction.  I don't want to have human heads hanging in any American city!!

I tried not to get involved in this subject.

But it occurred to me the most of American public is too nice and too naive even to comprehend the danger is out there!!

I didn't vote for Bush, but I think we should give him credit for keeping away further attacks on the US.  All politicians criticizing the US Army (like torture, etc.) doing disservice to the US and all peaceful nations.

Cheers!
Helpful - 0
179856 tn?1333547362
id anyone see Hillary emotionally say that she is for this country. That got to me.  
-----------------------

I was very surprised at how impressive she really was. Obama talks a lot of talk of nice words but I don't see him being able to change anything. Hillary's demeanor and speech gave me hope...but then again I am and always have been a supporter of the Clinton's (except they live in just about my hometown backyard and when they go on the highway they screw up the commute big time because you know they close the road exit to exit as they pass by).  ;)
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
If we are really worried about Islamist terrorists coming here, wouldn't securing our borders and ports be of paramount importance? The fact that this administration hasn't done that makes me wonder how concerned they really are. Or, are they just that stupid? I am not impressed with the democrats on that issue either, by the way. None of the democratic candidates even mentions border security.
We just see it differently. I think that a common enemy unites disparate groups and galvanizes them and we are the perfect common enemy. And the enormous capital we're expending could be much better spent in so many other areas such as rebuilding this country's decrepit infrastructure, as one obvious example. I could go on but we both have heard it many times. We just disagree and that's okay with me - as long as you don't become the commander in chief.
Be well, Mike

Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Opinion based----

When I'm hunting I can't think of a better scenario than my prey coming to my blind and congregating right where I am. Sure makes hunting easier. And as the next class in the madras (egg hatches) and finally graduates send them on over, too.

To think we are creating terrorists I believe is a naive view.  The Islamic extremists in the middle east were born, not created in a training camp somewhere. Their children from a very young age are taught that Israel does not have a right to the land, and are zionists that must be wiped off of the earth. The US is the Great Satan, a Collaborator with the Zionists, the root of all evil in the western world with a decadent society,and bent on destroying all Muslims.
If anything goes wrong in any mid-east country who is not an ally  for any reason at all,  the CIA will always be behind it. This is the way the children are brought up. Even their cartoons talk about jihad and America. The only reason we see more in concentrated numbers is twofold. Access from surrounding Muslim countries apparently is fairly easy, and for most going to America as a terrorist may or may not happen some day. besides, Why wait when they can fight personally against the Great Satan, just by hopping on a camel. How could an Islamo-fascist pass this opportunity by ? Secondly, there is strength in numbers.

All terrorists have a hatred in them for infidels. This hatred was planted long before we got there. And it will continue if we leave. I cannot imagine surrendering to a group of murderous thugs with no respect for life and cruel beyond measure, living just a couple of generations more advanced than stone agers. Can you imagine the boost in recruiting they will get when they show the rest of the Muslim world that it IS possible to kick the Great Satan's ***. It will boost their members worldwide, and greatly embolden them. Yes, I think Bush is right. They will follow us back home. I still can't get over the thought of losing and surrendering. Victory is the best option at this point.

The idea that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone so far has not worked out in our favor. Think WTC '94 and WTC 9-11, which happened before we occupied Arab land. They have a goal, and it matters not when it is completed. They have all the time in the world to fight this fight to wipe out all infidels, and install a theocratic regime globally. They will never leave us alone until their back has been broken permanently worldwide.

If the economy is only headed for a slowdown or a brief recession, a terrorist attack most certainly would turn it in a deep recession. Remember how long it was before people flew after 9-11 ? A dirty bomb could turn the world's biggest economy on its ear. It would have a very substantial global impact on the world's economic markets and the rersult could be worldwide recession.

I really believe it is better taking the fight to them there rather than fighting them over here. All the sob had to do was produce documents detaling the verifiable destruction of known ,tagged WMD.
I have a difficult time accepting the premise suggested by a couple of pundits that Saddam didn't think we would really do it. After '91 and '98 he HAD to know we would follow through on our word. besides there was no political risk, and only gain from the lightening of sanctions if he produced documents. It was a win-win for Saddam and he passed on it. This further suggested that he still had some.

There is alot at stake here---how this turns out will dictate how our kids and grandkids will live their lives. In constant fear of those who want us dead? Or a safer feeling that comes from security ?  Our economy, core beliefs and American values, all hang in the balance against the threat of global extremist jihadists. And they have all the time in the world. They are not going away on their own.

Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
Ya mean the kind in the can?  Do you think Forsee or LL would eat that stuff?  lol
Helpful - 0
148987 tn?1287805926
I have reported this thread as spam....LOL !!!
Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
In New Hamshire;  Hillary and McCain won the primaries.  Given the issues that americans are closest to...Which candidate do you thiink will get us out of this war and bring diplomacy?  Which candidate will help our economy and why?
Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
I know what you mean about it being too much, but for me liking politics and discussions (not f'ing contests) it at least makes my brain think about things other than my illnesses.  It is good for the brain to think about things and weigh in on different subjects. God knows we have gone through the gamet here.  I think it is healthy, as long as we don't take things too personally about the politics.

Back to the orginal question;  Who do you think is the best candidate to help our cause."  At this point I really don't know. did anyone see Hillary emotionally say that she is for this country. That got to me.  So does Obama and Edwards speeches about healhcare.  There are so many obstacles in the way of providing good healthcare for all ie; the Iraq war, the economy, the earmarks, the deficits....how do we get back to a place where we can even think about healthcare?  At this point, I don't think we can....Perhaps in the election and a candidate that is smart enough to deal with all the problems facing us, especially the war the the deficit we will do it.  Who Is that person?????
Helpful - 0
250084 tn?1303307435
  LOL! Don't do frog legs! Would consider ONCE tho :}

Doing very good compare to many, pretty bad compare to some :} Not too bad, thank you. I've just given in to tx! I've found it hurt's me more emotionally to fight it, feel inadequate, feel like a wimp, can't get things done, etc. than to just give in to it!! (just learning this 16 weeks in, LOL!)

Your right....too many pages for the credits on a book!

And that is NOT 'meat'....put that thing in the back of a car and it'll take a year to mold! If at all!  And I haven't even seen the movie 'sicko' yet! Rarely eat meat...if so it's 'organic':}...not a strict veggie person but that ain't meat! :}

BTW..... I am learning a LOT in these threads, so even the hostile debates can be .....ok ??
Hope your doing good :}                                           LL
Helpful - 0
179856 tn?1333547362
..... I could hardly believe it!  What in the world have I started here?  I've created a monster.  I never intended for WWIII to begin.  
---------------------------------------------------

and I'm purposefully not even piping up (as hard as that is for me!!!!!!!)    ;)
Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
I wondered what you would think! lol  Hey, we're just having fun, at least some of the time.  lol
Helpful - 0
131817 tn?1209529311
Yes, great analysis.  Goes to the point that if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place those jihadists wouldn't have gone there.  Yes, there is are lots of resentment for US involvement in Iraq. If we had just stayed in Afghanistan and gone after the Taliban and al queda we wouldn't have this problem we have now. We had world support whether open or implicit support going into Afghanistan.  Even Iran was providing information for us on Al Queda.  Why we went into Iraq is beyond me!  

OH; yep,  good post,  I agree.  

LL;  Yep,  except that brown stuff in the middle will leave that juice on the bun! Don't think you would like that!  

Beam;  Gonna check out the book and that ice cream. Who can leave out ice cream on tx?  Now I have higher cholesterol!  
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
People, people, people,,,,,geesh.....    I went away for a few days and came back and signed on here and there was over 300+ messages on this thread.  I could hardly believe it!  What in the world have I started here?  I've created a monster.  I never intended for WWIII to begin.  

Susan
Helpful - 0
Have an Answer?

You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community

Top Hepatitis Answerers
317787 tn?1473358451
DC
683231 tn?1467323017
Auburn, WA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.