 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Supposedly, the first aids case in the US was a gay flight attendant who hoped around the world on airplanes and frequenting gay bars and bath houses as he went. That was the story I remember hearing back in the 1980's when aids was first being tracked down. That also explains why it spread in the gay community first and why it was originally called "gay flu" dispite the fact that it spreads just as well among straight people.
|
I doubt you heard it in the early eighties since that's the story in Randy Shilts's book 'And the Band Played On'- published in 1987.
" In June 1982, ~{!.~}Capital Gay~{!/~} reported that some 300 American gay men, particularly from New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, had already contracted a Gay Compromise Syndrome, a condition otherwise known as the Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). The development, which was particularly newsworthy, however, was not its spread among the gay community, but that the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta had reported that 27 heterosexual men and 10 heterosexual women had now developed this disease. There was no indication, however, that anyone in the UK had yet been infected. "
It used to be called G.R.I.D. - Gay Related Immuno-Deficiency Disease and was brought to the attention of a world audience in part by a documentary called :
'The Killer in the Village'
" Media interest in the disease began to accelerate during the spring of 1983 following the transmission of the Horizon documentary ~{!.~}Killer in the Village~{!/~}, which was broadcast on 25 April. It was the first major television documentary about AIDS, and was immensely important as it contained a very chilling message. The documentary was also significant in that it was the first television programme to mention the Trust. "Martyn Butler and his friends had seen the slow death of Terrence Higgins, one of the first British victims of the bizarre new disease," the narrator reported. "Now, they~{!/~}re raising money to promote research and health education for those most at risk." "
http://www.xed44.dial.pipex.com/webch1.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Nope, you are missing the big picture.
1) The black community was offended by Fox's comment, their offense is based on their own cultural standards.
2) You were offended by the Spanish comment, by your own cultural standards.
When you offend someone because of their own cultural standards, it is best to error on the OTHER person's standards, not your own.
So, you can't have it both ways.
You can't tell me black people shouldn't be offended but then turn around and tell me something that was an innocent generalization offends YOU. |
"By our own cultural standards"?
You mean its an inherent Latin American cultural problem that we get offended when people call us something that we aren't? You don't get it do you, it's not that we feel its degrading or offensive to be called Spanish, it's just that its WRONG. We are NOT Spanish and there's a big difference in that Spanish and latinamericans are of different race, language, heck we even don't share the same continent. So why on earth should we just sit back and say nothing if someone incorrectly says what you are just because their stupid lazy ass thinks everyone who speaks spanish is exactly the same?
There is nothing cultural about this, I doubt Canadians would like it if they were called "English" or "Americans". Maybe I should call Japanese and Koreans "Chinese" since well, they look alike.
See the stupidity behind this?
Re-read my multiple explinations on the black comment to understand why it isn't the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Our revolution was an illegal act -- had we lost, George Washington, John Adams, Partick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and their buddies would have been executed for treason.
Now can you try to answer my question?  |
Every country has the right to establish the immigration laws that it wants. If the US wants to build a Berlin Wall along the border, it would be unjustified for us to complain since we are no-one to decide what you do to your own country.
However, when the issue turns into whether the US government could improve its income allocations and generally make a bigger profit out of illegal/legal immigration then you realize that the system is perhaps flawed. Flawed not over whether it is unjust to immigrants, but rather, flawed over whether it is the most efficient system from the point of view of the United States as a whole.
So this becomes a question over whether legalizing many of the illegals in the country will be far more beneficial or not to the US economy as a whole. I'm an economist which is why questions of this nature are what makes me decide whether a policy is successful or not. If I were a lawyer perhaps I'd be debating on the technicalities of "illegality" like you, but I'm not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Mexicans are NOT Spanish. That most dumbass gringos find it convenient to call everyone of latin/hispanic descent "Spanish" does not mean its the right term. |
I believe the term used by most people north of the border is Hispanic or Latino. The two are used interchangably but are different from Spanish.
Last edited by Oerdin on 23-05-2005 at 22:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
He only quotes it because he can't find a single unbiased source to back up his ridiculous claims. But being a racist, I doubt he'll ever be capable of dealing with the issue objectively so I guess it's pointless to continue arguing with someone who refused to listen to truth. |
Still whining about "bias" I see. And "racist" name-calling doesn't do much for your credibility. How about coming up with something substantial - like proving that the economic impact of illegal aliens is in any way substantial.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
Most of the discussion/links deal with immigration as a whole, not illegal immigration. Again, prove that the economic impact of illegal aliens is has any substantial impact on the US economy.
|
The Hoover Institution at Stanford was commissioned to do such a study in support of anti-immigration measures in Reagan's first term, using California as a basis.
The conclusion was that illegals were a net +2 billion contributor to the state economy, when you considered all pro and con costs.
Cons were the typical complaints - law enforcement, social services, looking at dirty brown people on the street corner, election of Democrat women politicians by hordes of unverified illegals who registered to vote, extra time spent washing their dirty grubby hand cooties off of our lettuce and tomatoes, occasional fires from migrant camps, and migrant associated crime.
Pros were cheap labor, and various tax and spending streams from everything from the food they bought to eat, exhorbitant fees for transferring money to Mexico, etc., plus a relative lack of litigation costs associated with wage and hours and workplace safety violations, because the wetbacks wouldn't rock the boat when they were being screwed by unscrupulous employers and labor contractors. Oh, and yuppies getting below-minimum wage, untaxed maids.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Hoover Institution at Stanford was commissioned to do such a study in support of anti-immigration measures in Reagan's first term, using California as a basis.
The conclusion was that illegals were a net +2 billion contributor to the state economy, when you considered all pro and con costs. |
Even if that was the case today, it wouldn't make much of a hole in the 10+ Billion federal cost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Uh, d00d. Read the part about net 2+ billion benefit.
"Net" means after the costs have been included. |
For the state of California, yes, but not for the Fed govt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The study included all costs and benefits. The state has never been in the immigration enforcement business, and the Feds get direct revenue benefits from the taxation of (higher) profits of businesses that exploit illegal labor and/or transact business with illegals.
The scope was limited to California, rather than attempting to study the impacts of all illegal immigrants everywhere in the US, which would take more time and cost more money to study. The Reagan admin was convinced that the California numbers alone would make their case, and when the numbers didn't, they declined to fund further studies. |
I fail to see how the results of a study conducted 25 years ago have much relevance on today's situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Nothing in that link is relevant. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigration.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2005 13:25
(although Feinstein seems to be pretty well regarded on the other side of the aisle, at least I've heard favorable comments about her from senior staffers to Republican members of congress).
|