Re: Best republican Lie Yet

Foxtrot <foxtrot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> waxed rhapsodic in
news:i7fbj2didlhmptc00msvc1cpa9dj16mmn3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> sleeper <moc.sseldnim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>Foxtrot <foxtrot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> waxed rhapsodic 
>>> sleeper <moc.sseldnim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Throughout the 80s and 90s AIDS activists
>>>>
>>>>what the **** is an "aids activist?"
>>> 
>>> Apparently you're too young to remember the big AIDS scare that 
>>> began in the 80s. 
>>
>>no, i remember quite well that reagan mentioned aids exactly once
>>during his tenure.  
> 
> Not true, Sleazer. You have been DUPED. 
> 
> http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200406101057.asp
> 
>    President Reagan used the word "AIDS" six times in his 1986 State
>    of the Union address. 

yeah.  when i said, "once," that was the time i was referring to.

i was wrong, not duped; the way i remember it, reagan was pretty silent on

the issue. 

> Read the entire article. Maybe you won't embarrass yourself so 
> much in the future.

i read yours.  check this out:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/cron/

In April, the president gives his first major speech on AIDS at the
College 
of Physicians in Philadelphia. He defends his administration's spending
and 
endorses educating students. "Let's be honest with ourselves: AIDS 
information cannot be what some call 'value-neutral.' After all, when it 
comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same 
lessons?"

At the request of actress and American Foundation for AIDS Research 
National Chairman Elizabeth Taylor, Reagan agrees to speak again at an 
amfAR fundraiser at the end of May. Reagan aide Landon Parvin writes the 
speech, and amfAR Director Merv Silverman advises. Parvin tells FRONTLINE 
that the speech was subject to an intense back-and-forth political debate 
within the White House. "It really didn't make much sense to have White 
House staff second-guessing a medical doctor, but that happened," he says.

At the dinner, Reagan announces the creation of a national commission and 
calls for education efforts and compassion. "There's no reason for those 
who carry the AIDS virus to wear a scarlet 'A,'" he says. But toward the 
end he is booed after calling for "routine testing" and denying residence 
to HIV-positive immigrants. The speech's positive messages are lost in the

ensuing political arguments and reactions.

Toward the end of his presidency, Reagan reversed the government's
previous 
legal position and mandated that all AIDS patients - symptomatic or 
asymptomatic - would now be protected against discrimination by entities 
receiving federal assistance. It was one of the recommendations that had 
been made by Reagan's  special commission on AIDS.


that was 1987.

>>meanwhile, the disease raged on, and nero fiddled while rome burned.
>>
>>typical republican bull****.
> 
> What should Reagan have done? Tell homos to quit BF'ing each 
> other and IV drug users to quit punching their arms with needles? 

he didn't mention aids for five years.  if he and the right-wingers in 
congress weren't so scandalized by the thought of a gay disease, maybe
they 
would have engaged the public and told people - well, anything.  anything 
at all.  like, "wear condoms and use clean needles.  thank you.  carry
on."

but i understand that the only way you can sell your argument is through 
polarization.  it's what republicans do.  "with us or against us."  "cut 
and run" or "stay the course."  if you sell it as black and white, it
makes 
it easy for "values voters," huh?  you and they must not be able to
analyze 
issues or something.

>>i also remember clinton wanting to send millions of dollars to africa
>>for education and prevention, but the republican congress shot it
>>down.  what little funds did get through got "administered" by big
>>pharma to the extent that the africans saw about 10% of the
>>appropriated funds. 
> 
> So how much of your personal money did you pay VOLUNTARILY, 
> Sleazer? If it's so im****tant, whip out your own wallet instead of 
> *****ing about it, eh? 

oh, because using tax dollars for humanitarian aid is socialism, right?

nice comeback.

>>> How do you explain the high rate of hetero***ual AIDS in Africa but 
>>> not here? HMMM? Or do you just insult people who do offer ideas 
>>> without offering any of your own? 
>>
>>it has a lot to do with lack of *** education, lack of access to
>>things like spermicides and condoms, and extreme poverty.
> 
> Yeah lack of education: Hey you dummies, quit ****ing each other 
> in the butts! Education complete. 

and you wonder why i insult you.

>>but i sorry.  did i hurt your wittle feelings?
> 
> No you showed that you have nothing substantive to say, you just 
> hurl insults. That means you lost the debate. Heh heh 

i've answered damn near every one of your posts with substantive
arguments.

shall i highlight them for you, your highness?

in the meantime, we have strayed off topic.  you have accused democrats of

wanting to teach anal *** to kids in school in an attempt to scare "values

voters" into voting republican.

it was a stupid statement and you know it, but you can't be honest.

-- 
http://www.kexp.org

listener-powered and commercial-free.