Posted on 06/12/2004 11:13:40 PM PDT by doug from upland
Thanks for posting this - I guess....
(It's not mealtime at least.)
As revolting as it is, people need to know the truth about the homosexual life.
More of the liberal creed: "Allow me to be irresponsible, and in return I'll allow you all to pay for the consequences of my irresponsibility."
Is RR also responsible for the epidemic of syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and halatosis among promicuous gay men ?
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Lesson 1 in Why Homosexuals Are Not Normal, and Why Homosexual Behavior Is Not Like Regular Man+Woman Relationships.
Everyone should take this course. Put your squeamishness aside. (Not exactly romantic hearts and flowers, eh?)
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
**** http://www.mikegabbard.com/ ****
A strong conseravative running for US CONGRESS from Hawaii. The main reason why Hawaii has an amendment protecting marriage. This man should be in Congress.
There is always the miracle drug, Trinoasitol!
Keeping their pants on would have done a lot towards keeping the disease from spreading. Both Reagan & Bush 43 have spent millions on AIDS.
Will You Please Shut up now?
Leftists are already hammering Ronald Reagan. You would think Hitler had just died. But no, Hitler is in the White House, remember? Unless more than one Republican can be Hitler at once.
Here are two of the old familiar lies they're trotting out:
1. Ronald Reagan didn't spend money on AIDS.
2. Ronald Reagan didn't say the word "AIDS" publicly until 1987.
Both of these statements are completely false, as Deroy Murdock proved in an excellent National Review piece. Murdock shows that President Reagan mentioned AIDS publicly in 1987, and that he said the word five times in his 1986 State of the Union Address. And a Congressional study found that the government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during President Reagan's tenure.
So shut it. Find a new lie.
It's amazing to me that people think it's so important for a President to say "AIDS." As if saying it will make it go away.
The AIDS epidemic is one of the dumber things the left has tried to blame on Republicans. It's not like Ronald Reagan flew around infecting people. People infected each other, and once we knew the cause of AIDS and how to avoid spreading it, they kept right on infecting each other, and now we live in a time where almost every American who has AIDS got it by doing something he or she knew better than to do.
And don't get me started on the wave of men who deliberately infected themselves because they felt left out. Thanks to them, human beings, as a species, can no longer feel superior to lemmings. After all, lemmings don't know they're going to fall off cliffs. And they don't tax other lemmings to make them pay for treatment after they hit the ground.
To me, it's as if there were an epidemic of people hitting themselves in the face with a hammer. Here's a thought: stop doing that.
History has proven that even if Ronald Reagan had spent the entire budget on fighting AIDS, promiscuous people and drug users would have found a way to spread it anyway. Even with Big Mean John Ashcroft in the White House, the government does not have the power to glue your pants shut.
I know, there are innocent victims. Sure, and somewhere in America, once in a blue moon, a woman needs an abortion because of incest. And every month, someone in America gets rich by winning a lottery. Should we pretend these cases are typical?
The epidemic isn't built from innocent victims, any more than a Cracker Jack box is full of prizes. Seems to me the innocent victims are victims of the victims who aren't innocent, because it's thanks to them, not President Reagan, that the infection is prevalent enough to reach the innocent.
It's telling that people on both sides of the debate use the word "innocent" to describe people who got AIDS through no fault of their own. It means that deep in their hearts, they consider most AIDS victims guilty. And while I wouldn't use the word "guilty," I'm comfortable with "responsible."
Anyway, AIDS was not caused by voting Republican, no matter how badly the left wishes it were so. File that nonsense away with "slave trauma" as an excuse for killing your children. Sometimes the person who does the damage is the person who should be held accountable. Crazy idea, isn't it? Me and my revolutionary notions.
In other news, spin doctors on both sides of the political spectrum are openly trying to figure out just how much President Reagan helped President Bush by passing away, and what to do about it.
I could draw a parallel to worms, but I think I'll stop without developing it. Posted by Steve H. at June 7, 2004 08:56 AM | TrackBack
Of course not, that was Bush's fault!
Yep, we've had a few public park restrooms shut down around here, because for some reason moms and dads resent it when their kids need to use the bathroom, and they walk in and find the lunch break poofies going at it. I guess they're just homophobes. They should stop being so prejudiced, and just accept that male orgies in smelly, dirty public bathrooms in broad daylight is perfectly normal behavior.
Dale from Harrisburg, PA writes:
I often accused Reagan of not taking action in the AIDS crisis and there are certainly things that could have been done sooner and better. However, Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative pundit and a person with AIDS had this to say on the subject in his weblog, andrewsullivan.com, today. I think it's worth reading: "The basic argument from the gay left is that Reagan was single-handedly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people by negligence. This, however, borders on loopy. Reagan should indeed be faulted for not doing more to warn people of the dangers of infection early enough (Thatcher was far better). But the truth is that it was pretty obvious very early on that something dangerous was afoot as AIDS first surfaced. Just read Larry Kramer at the time. Many people most at risk were aware - mostly too late, alas - that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing "And The Band Played On," to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished. As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms - not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after. Yes, the Congress was critical in this. But by 1986, Reagan had endorsed a large prevention and research effort and declared in his budget message that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."
That aids was caused by Reagan is laughably ridiculous and is an outrage. I just cannot abide these people.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
I lived in that part of the world in the late 70's and early 80's when AIDS started to take off. If it, AIDS, hadn't been a disease of one of the politically-protected classes, the gays would have all been quaranteened, and the disease contained.
There was a gay writer (Schills?) who wrote in the early 90's, shortly before his death (from guess what) about this in a book called 'Bang the Drum, Slowly' (?).
When I said "that part of the world", I meant the Bay Area.
Don't want no misunderstandings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.