Posted on 01/29/2003 7:57:13 AM PST by TLBSHOW
We are paying for it, because it is a key move in the political game being played. They're doing this proposal to preempt the socialist demands for a $120/person donation to the African AIDS fund. Instead, they're offering $50/person.
This and all the other socialist programs being advanced are primarily to secure votes. In additon they are playing to gain position in the rest of the socialist world. They are minimizing the amount redistribution they figure is needed to stay in power. That's what it amounts to. That goes for the black hole that is their hydrogen proposal also.
In reality, if all those leftist bozos were really concerned about the plight of the Africans, they'd use their own time, talents and money to do something. Well, they don't give a damn. What they are interested in is perceptions. They are artists, con artists, appealing to the emotional waverings of the voters. Their activities are almost entirely driven by their own motivations for cash, power and glory.
Aids in Africa is not being transmitted by anal intercourse. Please refrain from posting when you're ignorant.
Is there some new airborne strain im unaware of?
And please set me straight when I'M wrong, brother.
That, and more! There are SO many aspects of this move that are smart:
-- Blacks have to see that Bush MEANS it when he talks about compassion
-- Liberals have had the rug pulled out from under them on two fronts, blacks and AIDS
-- Bush has taken the AIDS issue, removed it from the American Gay agenda, and directed it toward a people worthy of help. Gays would look like chumps to complain.
-- A poster here noted the national security aspects of this, i.e., someone dying of AIDS might feel, why not die as a suicide bomber, I'll die anyway.
-- A poster here also noted that this is a good way to stay on the good side of nations rich in natural resources
-- Someone noted that may provide stimulus to pharmaceutical companies
-- Depending on how it is administrated, this program will help show, once more, the uselessness of the UN.
I thought this was brilliant strategy by Bush. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't tax us to use money for such things, but this is not a perfect world. I think Bush is way ahead of the curve here and dealing with the REAL world.
Sinkspur - the only thing which will stop it is refraining from sexual promiscuity. Nothing, I repeat, nothing else will. Out of compassion, it is good to help those who suffer, but as many have suggested on this thread, there are a great many who suffer in this world - a great many of whom do so not of their own poor choices. We should be helping in a balanced way - but we've made AIDs cases more important than just plain hunger. Further, we're spending a great deal of this money in ways that do nothing to reduce sexual promiscuity (the root cause of this problem). As usual, the liberals wish to spend a great deal of money in a very PC way, and which does not make a lot of common sense (liberalism = lack of common sense in general). Further, as many posters have pointed out, charity should be a personal decision - not a governmental one. It would be far better for the president to urge AMericans to help with their own funds sufferers of hunger and AIDs around the world, than to take our money and tell us where best to spend it.
Hopefully, Mugabe will buy some American weapons, and maybe a Hummer or three. Besides, we're only talking about fifteen billion dollars. That's nothing these days.
It IS true that a new paradigim is needed for Africa.
As much as the CONDOM pushers tried (the P.C. do-gooders), the approach that was successful came from Africans themselves.
And it turned out to be Old Fashioned Morality.
A year ago, I, too would have been sceptical of a large amount of money designated for medicines, when no slowdown in infection rates had been achieved anywhere.
But the excitement of that Ugandan health minister was great to see.
The good needs to be affirmed.
This is the time to do for aids what was done for polio, smallpox, and other diseases which were endemic at one time.
A good summation, Finny. In principal, this is not a right thing for most conservatives. But it was a brilliant, brilliant political strategy - and one hopes that given that, the money will indeed help those who suffer.
The worst is that liberals can't even bear to see the connection between AIDs and rampant sexual promiscuity. Liberalism is the antithesis of common sense.
I'm worried about you weikel.
Seems like there's a few things missing in your education.
Like how babies are made LOL!!!
The truth is, pining, that Bush, to lock up his electoral majorities, must pander some of the time to liberals. When he does so, he tries to do is in the most politically devastating way. That's what he was doing. And, hopefully, some of the pander money will really help some who suffer.
Yes we can do that, but then dollar will then lose value against other currencies.
Not a wise move at all.
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.