Shooting in Orlando Nightclub
-
That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).
Three notes:
- It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know
- True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)
- I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010
You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood
Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Islam has always been a brutal religion filled with murders and killings for all sorts of infractions. But since they embraced the internet during the iraq war the whole thing has amped up to an incredible degree. Why? Because they know they have a captive audience. The whole world is watching their videos and so they are compelled to amp up the savagery
Islam has always been a brutal religion filled with murders and killings for all sorts of infractions. But since they embraced the internet during the iraq war the whole thing has amped up to an incredible degree. Why? Because they know they have a captive audience. The whole world is watching their videos and so they are compelled to amp up the savagery
It also gives them a means to incite crazy lone wolves across the world. Some that might snap on there own, but ISIS may be able to push them over the edge and claim credit. Win / win for them really.
-
That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).
Three notes:
- It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know
- True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)
- I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010
You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood
Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.
That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).
Three notes:
- It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know
- True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)
- I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010
You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood
Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.
That's what I meant, many don't even know.
And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.
In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.
-
Stop treating this as if it's solely a gun control/mental health issue. You're too intelligent for that.
This goes back my original question though VT, what is the answer? Terrorism exists but so does the stuff I'm talking about. Banning Muslims isn't solving the problem.
One Post From the Truth said:
I'm talking about the war on terrorism silly. There are mass shootings besides Muslim attacks that's not what I'm talking about. Now before you act like I'm dodging a question stay on the topic asshole.
I wasn't and you still dodging my question I've plainly stated twice. You must call a lot of people buzz killers when you can't follow along.
This goes back my original question though VT, what is the answer? Terrorism exists but so does the stuff I'm talking about. Banning Muslims isn't solving the problem.
this situation is kind of like condom use. The condom will irritate and inconvenience a bunch of people. The condom won't protect you against herpes or genital warts, but the condom will protect you from syphilis and gonorrhea (which can kill you). Banning Muslims won't solve terrorism, but that will pose a significant barrier for terrorists abroad who would like to come here and kill Americans. I'd much rather force them to try and turn American citizens than to worry about weeding out the good ones from the bad. Why fight a war on two fronts when you have the means to fight it on a single front?
-
-
That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).
Three notes:
- It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know
- True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)
- I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010
You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood
Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.
That's what I meant, many don't even know.
And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.
In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.
That's what I meant, many don't even know.
And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.
In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.
So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?
-
That's what I meant, many don't even know.
And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.
In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.
So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?
So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?
No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.
Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.
-
-
So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?
No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.
Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.
No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.
Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.
At the very least then you think they'd allow a gay man with an up to date negative HIV test donate.
But at the same time, that means any crazy person can lie when they donate and give blood that they know is contaminated.
-
I enjoy watching the responses to a sickening event. It's incredible how fast most people fly to their pulpit.
At this point, I've given up. I have have no answers, no solutions because they would involve rationality and that isn't something the people of the US are prepared for.
This will be spun into another Right v Left, US vs Them shit fight.
Stuart
Its not about right vs. left. It's about right vs. wrong.
It becomes left vs. right is because condemning Islamic extremism would put you libfucks on the same side as those that identify as Christians and you certainly wouldn't want to do that.
You know its true.
So very original.libfucks
You know its true.
Edit: so I see the phrase 'ban Muslims'.
How would you apply that? You have many that are born here, red blooded Americans not overly devout on their faith and good people. I have several as friends.
So you're just going to ban American citizens? To where? How? For how long? Are we prepared to send flesh and blood fellow citizens to a different country that will (allow) them asylum??
-
-
Those are some racist facts.
Of course neither Muslim nor homosexuality counts as a race...
WSS
-
No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.
Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.
At the very least then you think they'd allow a gay man with an up to date negative HIV test donate.
But at the same time, that means any crazy person can lie when they donate and give blood that they know is contaminated.
At the very least then you think they'd allow a gay man with an up to date negative HIV test donate.
But at the same time, that means any crazy person can lie when they donate and give blood that they know is contaminated.
I give blood on a regular basis and while my sanity might be in question by some of you I don't think they take my answer on the questionnaire as proof.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
But when a devout Muslim and follower of Isis assassinate dozens of gay Americans during Ramadan and our president, who refuses to so much as utter the words Muslim terrorism, bleats about gun control, it seems just the tiniest bit off point.
WSS
-
At the very least then you think they'd allow a gay man with an up to date negative HIV test donate.
But at the same time, that means any crazy person can lie when they donate and give blood that they know is contaminated.
I give blood on a regular basis and while my sanity might be in question by some of you I don't think they take my answer on the questionnaire as proof.
WSS
I give blood on a regular basis and while my sanity might be in question by some of you I don't think they take my answer on the questionnaire as proof.
WSS
My sister worked for yrs as a tech in many many blood banks.. Including a stint just off the Diag .. Yeah, between HIV, Hep and a number of other blood issues, They test.. This conversation is just another "Hey look over here" attempt by the left to take focus off radical islam..
Seriously, why is so much energy being expended to avoid the 600 lb Gorilla in the room?
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
So very original.libfucks
You know its true.
Edit: so I see the phrase 'ban Muslims'.
How would you apply that? You have many that are born here, red blooded Americans not overly devout on their faith and good people. I have several as friends.
So you're just going to ban American citizens? To where? How? For how long? Are we prepared to send flesh and blood fellow citizens to a different country that will (allow) them asylum??
So very original.
Edit: so I see the phrase 'ban Muslims'.
How would you apply that? You have many that are born here, red blooded Americans not overly devout on their faith and good people. I have several as friends.
So you're just going to ban American citizens? To where? How? For how long? Are we prepared to send flesh and blood fellow citizens to a different country that will (allow) them asylum??
Libfucks, libtards, what the fuck ever, I'm not looking for originality points. Way to focus on that and omit the main point.
So do you concede that the world faces a far greater threat from Islamic extremism than Christianity? Yes or no?
-
I wish Muslims would just die off. Fucking parasites
-
So very original.
Edit: so I see the phrase 'ban Muslims'.
How would you apply that? You have many that are born here, red blooded Americans not overly devout on their faith and good people. I have several as friends.
So you're just going to ban American citizens? To where? How? For how long? Are we prepared to send flesh and blood fellow citizens to a different country that will (allow) them asylum??
Libfucks, libtards, what the fuck ever, I'm not looking for originality points. Way to focus on that and omit the main point.
So do you concede that the world faces a far greater threat from Islamic extremism than Christianity? Yes or no?
Libfucks, libtards, what the fuck ever, I'm not looking for originality points. Way to focus on that and omit the main point.
So do you concede that the world faces a far greater threat from Islamic extremism than Christianity? Yes or no?
I'm not sure why you're attempting to pick a fight with me on this. I never once attempted to argue against Islamic extremism as its a great threat and anyone whom was blind to it before shouldn't be now.
You're going at someone whom you can't label a 'libfuck' because... I'm not one. Not that I'm saying you could call me a conservative either. However once you try to argue outside of that little bubble of yours, you get confused. I get it. Simply because I don't clearly lean either left or right you're blindsided when someone says something rather centric so you run home to the terms you know "Lib fuck/tard" ... whatever it is you dumbasses use.
What happened to today is the result of extremism. When anyone acts in the name of their God in anything resembling a manner like this - its extremism. I take offense to anyone who would suggest otherwise. Sadly, extremism is plunging this world into darkness really damn quick.
Too difficult to understand, sweetheart?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login