Posted by chemist on June 12, 2005, at 21:01:03 [reposted on June 14, 2005, at 3:15:59 | original URL]
In reply to So's request for Robert Hsuing, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:35
hello there, chemist here...current u.s. officials have increased federal u.s. spending in homeland defense and security 15% from 2003-2005, while flatlining or lowering budgets of other governmental agencies, inclusive of the n.i.h. and the n.s.f.
i am not suggesting that the policies are inadequate: i am writing that in my opinion, any person who supports the policies of the u.s. government that target a select number of people for discrimination due to sexual, religious, racial, or other reasons germane to the civil rights act of 1964 (at least) is being not only uncivil but shows a callous contempt for the targeted individuals (here, largely homosexual males and intravenous drug users).
the ``voluntary participation'' of your ``fellow citizens'' must be in keeping with the christian-based, bible-derived tenets upon which the u.s. government relies in estimating whether or not your fellow citizens have a disease that is worth treatment. if homosexuality is not ``right,'' how can any associated maladies warrant attention? after all, approved gay marriage licenses are routinely overturned by higher courts, and gay marriage does not correlate with contracting HIV/AIDS. defending the marriage of church and state by the bush administration correlates with discrimination and increased mortality in a targeted minority.
further: the electoral college is an all-or-nothing mandate with the exception of two (2) states, nebraska and maine, neither of which has been a swing state in any election. period. george w. bush was not elected predident of the u.s. by a simple majority the first term, and was elected the second time due to the continued life of the antiquated (and 96% unicameral) electoral colleges in each state.
i hope my stance is clear. all the best, chemist
> I am suggesting that government policies concerning adminstration of medical assistance for those with certain diseases is appropriate, within the rule of law and level of voluntary participation among my fellow citizens. And I hold that regardless my preference for different policies, current officials have acted within their measure of true compassion to budget billions of dollars to address the prevelance of aquired immune difficiency syndrome in the US and abroad. But another poster here has suggested that those policies are inadequate.
>
> As administrator, you previously replied to my inquiry about the propriety of calling government policies "a joke" by asking me questions about how I feel, but then did not respond to my request for clarification about whether it is permissible to call those policies "a joke" or other terms.
>
> Now a poster writes:
>
> "the u.s. government ... is not accurately defined as pathetic - ... as much as ``apathetic'' - having or showing little or no feeling or emotion or having little or no interest or concern - as far as the cohort of people infected with and/or suffering from HIV and/or AIDS; and to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, nothing short of a sick joke. an offensive and deleterious sick joke, in my estimation.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511740.html
>
> But I am suggesting otherwise. I believe elected officials are acting in good faith and are appropriating resources according to their best judgement in service to voters that favored them as well as to the entire electorate and the entire population. I am not offering a sick joke. I realize some people would prefer more government resources be appropriated to remedy certain problems, and I share an interest in seeing different priorities. I don't consider opinions contrary to mine to be a "sick joke" nor to I consider my good faith toward those who hold contrary opinions to be either "offensive" or a "deleterious sick joke." Even if it is only one person's estimation, my estimation of the rules of this forum suggests I am not permitted to make similar statements.
>
> My question is, is it permissible within the rules of this forum to call my assertion that the current government of the United States is legitimate in it's decisions and decision making "a sick joke" or to estimate other people's widely shared opinions as "offensive"?
>
poster:chemist
thread:512420
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/512431.html