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

lowing wrote:

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

Bush began the process by declassifying it as "of public health significance".

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm]PEPFAR

President George H.W. Bush issued a measure by which HIV-positive non-citizens could receive a ten-day waiver to attend scientific meetings or special events.

In fact, the only reason Bush did not remove the ban is because he couldn't.. no President can on his own.

However, abolishing the HIV travel and immigration ban requires the HHS Secretary to promulgate a new regulation. As a result of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and the change in presidential administrations, HHS has still not issued a revised rule and therefore HIV-positive students, tourists, business people, and foreign nationals remain barred from the US.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today called on the Department of Health and Human Services to update its regulations following the President’s (Bush) signing of legislation to reauthorize PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Included in this measure was a provision to repeal our nation’s discriminatory law barring HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.

http://www.hrc.org/12998.htm

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

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

Bush began the process by declassifying it as "of public health significance".

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm]PEPFAR

President George H.W. Bush issued a measure by which HIV-positive non-citizens could receive a ten-day waiver to attend scientific meetings or special events.

In fact, the only reason Bush did not remove the ban is because he couldn't.. no President can on his own.

However, abolishing the HIV travel and immigration ban requires the HHS Secretary to promulgate a new regulation. As a result of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and the change in presidential administrations, HHS has still not issued a revised rule and therefore HIV-positive students, tourists, business people, and foreign nationals remain barred from the US.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today called on the Department of Health and Human Services to update its regulations following the President’s (Bush) signing of legislation to reauthorize PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Included in this measure was a provision to repeal our nation’s discriminatory law barring HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.

http://www.hrc.org/12998.htm

From what I read, all Bush did was relieve the administration the responsibility of making that decision as to whether to keep AIDS out or let it in. He never signed anything removing the ban.

from your own link:

"In July 2008, President Bush signed into law, as part of the reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a provision that removed the ban from statute and returned regulatory authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine whether HIV should remain on a list of communicable diseases that bar foreign nationals from entering the United States."

and all this action did was allow the beloved lobbyists in to buy or blackmail their way to further action.


"Since passage of the PEPFAR bill, HRC has lobbied both the Bush and Obama administrations to remove the remaining regulatory ban." <---(Bush didn't, Obama did)

"The current travel and immigration ban prohibits HIV-positive foreign nationals from entering the U.S. unless they obtain a special waiver, which is difficult to obtain and can only allow for short-term travel."

I am thinking if Bush wanted to allow unchecked passage of this disease into our country he would have lifted the ban. He didn't, this is the action of the Community Organizer Obama

So kindly reinstate the thread to its original title.

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-06 13:00:45)

DonFck wrote:

You know what scares me lowing? It's the image of you one day packing your truck with a rifle and ammunition and drive over to Penn. Ave.

Btw, if you didn't vote, you can't say shit.

Sorry if I offended by supporting my argument with his own sources, doing so does not make me a murderer DonFck.

and yeah I didn't vote on this one, was out of the country and procrastinated. I did know however, my state was going to vote Republican so, in my case I knew my vote was not going to matter.

By the way, just because I missed the vote does not mean I forfeit all my rights as an American. Not even really sure where you got that notion from

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-05 02:44:24)

So your neighbors to the left and right both sell their homes and some recently arrived immigrants come in. Would you rather the immigrants be HIV positive South Africans or educated engineer Chinese or Indians? You have small children too. The U.S. government only gives out so many visas a year so for every AIDS stricken person they let into the country some educated non disease carrier gets denied a chance at living here. Is it too much to ask for some healthy not infected with a deadly disease immigrants?

AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-02-17 15:39:21)

Jaekus wrote:

AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

jord wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … 43921.html

Harrich himself notes that his research is not an HIV cure. "You would still be infected with HIV," he said, according to the Queensland Institute's statement. "But the virus would stay latent, it wouldn't wake up, so it wouldn't develop into AIDS. With a treatment like this, you would maintain a healthy immune system."

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-02-17 22:44:36)

Thats a pretty huge piece of progress, I think I could accept having a god-hating-HIV-ridden-faggot as a neighbour in those circumstances.

Ehrm, what?

HIV = human immunodeficiency virus
AIDS = acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

The former is a virus, which you could only "cured" by completely removing it from the body below detection thresholds, and even then you couldn't be sure if that nasty thing isn't still dormant in some cells.
The latter is, as the name implies, a syndrome with a multitude of different symptoms caused by the virus.
AIDS patients commonly die by some different disease like pneumonia in the end, because their immune system is totally fucked.

What good is it to call AIDS "cured" just because you can suppress the virus well enough not cause all symptoms?
It's still in the body and can be spread to other people.

IMO, a cure implies a vaccine that is effective enough to be used for a wide enough vaccination coverage and immunize large parts of the population.
In the optimum case, the virus would be completely eradicated in humans (e.g. small pox) , which doesn't help here, as HIV came from primates, and you'd have a hard time vaccinating enough gorillas and chimps in the jungle.
Or some antiviral drug that can achieve the same.