Quote:
Originally Posted by Iandefor  Perhaps you misread him. What I got is that Daquan doesn't have a problem with AIDS aid but thinks domestic aid should take priority. Seems like a single position to me. |
I didn't misread him at all. He's being intellectually dishonest. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
"that might be a good idea (about time that he does something with that"
This means he's waited to long to take action. He's showing disapproval that the problem in Africa has been neglected too much
"Why in the hell is there always this big concern from him to try to help other countries when he's neglecting things in his own back yard?!!"
This means he shouldn't be concerned with Africa's supposed AIDs epidemic - he should be working on domestic problems.
I really don't see a huge problem with AIDs in the U.S. I support research in the private sector, and I recognize people do contract the disease and that's a bad thing. But its also virtually 100% preventable today
Anyway, and I'm surprised that you've lost your distaste for thread hijacking (Katrina and Iraq are topics for seperate threads) btw, the question is...
Is the $50 billion for aid to treating AIDS in other countries a good decision or not? Do you support it or no? Should the money be spent on that or something else?