Page 1 of 1 pages
Bleifuss, are you saying we should not give any money? Its a shame you’ve been blinded by ideology.
Posted by Brad on Jun 6, 2003 at 5:49 PM
What ideology would that be, Brad?
Posted by OK on Jun 9, 2003 at 7:12 AM
The hardcore left-wing ideology that says you must criticize Bush no matter what.
Posted by Brad on Jun 9, 2003 at 11:46 AM
So if you were going to criticize him what would you say?
Posted by OK on Jun 9, 2003 at 3:27 PM
I wouldn’t criticize him on this, its a shame that he’s being accused of being evil for helping someone else out.
I assuming you’re asking what I think Bush does bad. I’ll tell you, border security, we have to stop the drugs from coming in, because if drugs are getting in this easy than terrorists can as well. I think the death penalty is ineffective. Bush obviously disagrees. Bush is horrendous on environmental issues. He is showing support for one of the true bad guys out there in Ken Lay (which is terrible example he sets for the nation).
So I’m not just some republican idealogue that spews out their talking points. But still, when Bush does something humanitarian, he should be applauded not criticized.
Posted by Brad on Jun 9, 2003 at 3:55 PM
Don’t get me wrong, this criticism is not exclusive to the current admnistration, as the Clinton admin imposed sanctions upon the S. African people when their gov tried to provide cheaper AIDS drugs, my point being I’m not bashing Bush indiscriminately. While I appreciate that Bush is providing medication to 5% of the worlds’ AIDS sufferers, I feel that many more lives would be saved if property rights were relaxed. If he is truly doing all in his considerable power to combat AIDS why are his admin and the pharmaceutical lobbyists working on trade laws to make the medication less freely available?
Posted by OK on Jun 10, 2003 at 3:04 AM
Hmmm.
Hard to tell with Bush. All horrible presidents have done some good things and I feel most of the things he’s done under the guise of “security” or “humanitarian” reasons or whatever else the money phrase is for the week are done mostly for financial gain and to pay back his corrupt campaign contributors.
Posted by neil on Jun 10, 2003 at 3:45 AM
To what extent should property rights be “relaxed”? Or, to put it another way, to what extent should we damage the ability of drug companies to profitably embark on future research investigations?
While I’m an atheist myself, and I agree birth control devices would be a wise thing to include (and actually, I’m pretty sure the majority of Christians would agree with that), the concept of teaching “abstinence” and discretion isn’t a bad one. Or are we so arrogant to think that “those people” can’t help themselves?
Lowering the price of treatment from $15,000 to $150 a year? Does that have any basis in reality? Would that be a wise use of the coercive power of government, to force companies to take massive losses on past research? What do you think that would do to any future research endeavours?
Imagine you’re on the financial management or managerial accounting team for a drug company. There’s a seed of promising new research you’re considering undertaking, research that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars over many years, but that if successful will greatly improve chances of survival or quality of life (and not necessarily for AIDS sufferers). Unfortunately, you know that the last time, the government kicked your legs right out from under you and the company nearly sank. Are you going to be less likely to take on the new research?
But I think Brad had it right to start with. If President Bush committed $0, he’d be criticized. If he committed $xxx, it’s pandering, nothing more. But no matter WHAT amount of money was committed, he was bound to be criticized for it. And here it is. And what does it mean? To me, it means the criticism (on a variety of topics) is being irrelevant.
Bob Geldof seemed appreciative.
But in your third paragraph, you touch on a point you never came back to. What will the rest of the world do now? Will the contributions from the entire world minus the US add up to *half* $15B/5 years? I hope it does, and frankly, I hope the world tries to show up the US by giving a lot more. But I’m not expecting it.
Posted by Kevin White on Jun 10, 2003 at 8:01 PM
Well Kevin, I am wondering how many tax-free government dollars have been granted to pharaceutical companies to assist them with their research expenses since AIDS began? I also wonder how much these companies pay in taxes, since most of them locate their headquarters in Puerto Rico, which is an effective tax shelter. I also wonder at their profit margins. I haven’t seen any negative news about pharmaceutical profits in this difficult economy, and government initiatives concerning Medicare seem configured to add a lot more money to their coffers. Interesting you are more concerned about them than the dead bodies piling up in Africa, or the AIDS orphans who are being scooped up by right-wing Islamic schools and trained in all sorts of unpleasant notions about America.
Bleifuss is trying to give us the whole picture, and poor Brad is happy stopping at the sound bite, like most of America. Too bad. Have any of you ever tried to teach abstinence? Guess what, it doesn’t work, certainly not as an exclusive policy. Rember adolescence? Hormones? You have to work with them, not pretend they can be taught away. Gay communities in cities all over the world have proven the effectiveness of free or inexpensive condom availability in halting the spread of AIDS. Brad, if you have a billion dollars to spend on a pack of ineffective but well-meaning missionaries, spend away. From what I’ve been reading, this country doesn’t. Bush isn’t being criticized here for spending, he’s being criticized for spending poorly and ineffectively, eschewing proven solutions for politically advantageous ones. That strikes me as completely valid criticism. And that this administration is once again aggressively trying to delegitimate an international agreement that battles for the health of the world’s most unfortunate while wearing the mantle of generosity is indeed cause for speaking out. Who have we helped recently? Afghanistan? Iraq? Both are scenes of chaos, violence, and rampant poverty. Where has the Bush administration gone where it left things better than when it arrived? Shall we start with the federal budget? Notice the patterns people, and put away your tired red, white and blue pom poms.
Posted by Robert on Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32 AM
Robert you have no idea what you’re talking about. Numerous studies have been done comparing the teaching of abstinence to birth control. In the end, everytime, abstinence always wins out. I believe birth control should be taught, but don’t tell me that abstinence is less effective than teaching birth control. Its not true. Also the best way to decrease birth rates/AIDS spreading (birth rates are just as big a problem) is to educate women, hopefully the missionaries will do that.
Oh, Robert, you’re right, Afghanistan was way better off with the taliban, and Iraq was so much better with Sadam, please.
Posted by Brad on Jun 11, 2003 at 11:28 AM
Bodies have been piling up for centuries, for a wide variety of reasons. Perhaps, in some far-flung future utopia, man will have the wherewithal to prevent such things. Until then, why don’t we stick to reality, eh? I don’t see how destroying drug companies with flagrantly anti-capitalistic government coercion would serve the needs, in the long run, of the vast majority of not only AIDS sufferers, but all disease sufferers.
I have taught abstinence, as a matter of fact—to myself. There’s also the idea of *discretion*. I will never understand the jingoistic attitude that says that “this group of people is too dumb to understand this idea” and “that group of people is too backwards to enjoy this form of government”. Now, I said before I think condoms would be a good idea to include in the relief package, but are you trying to say the people are destined to mate like rats, and there’s nothing they or anyone else can do to stop themselves?
Frankly, I find it astounding to think that man, ostensibly the most intelligent species on earth, who has created great works throughout history, is still an absolute slave to something as one-dimensional as the biological imperative to procreate… to the point that we’ll deliberately and repeatedly engage in a behavior known to have a multitude of undesirable and even deadly side effects. I’m tempted to paraphrase an old saying: you act promiscuous, you takes your chances.
But that’s the thing. Does everyone in Africa even know of the link between indiscriminate sexual activity and AIDS? Is it possible equipping people with some real knowledge and data could be beneficial? Or can they JUST NOT HELP THEMSELVES?
I’ll say again: I think condoms should be included. But the $1B is for education, not conversion.
If you like, just look at the relief package as a $14B/5 years package. That’s a hell of a lot of money. Let’s hope the rest of the world comes close to that, spending their money the way they see fit.
Posted by Kevin White on Jun 11, 2003 at 11:35 AM
Iraq: surely, you jest. If there was an expectation that things were going to go smoothly after the first Saddam statue tumbled over, it was totally unrealistic. These aren’t the most principled people on earth, it’s true—they’ve hardly had a chance to learn and grow and show greatness. But they will. There was a news story recently about how many Iraqis are having trouble coming to grips with just what freedom is. They’ve never tasted it, never studied it, never had a concept of it. It is going to take TIME. Regime change, and a change in the form of government, is rarely smooth, peaceful, or free of problems that must be solved. That doesn’t mean you don’t do it. The people will be better off.
Posted by Kevin White on Jun 11, 2003 at 11:39 AM
Kevin,
When you say the Iraqis “aren’t the most principled people on earth”, what do you mean by that?
Posted by K on Jun 11, 2003 at 12:21 PM
Hmm, I thought it was evident.
In other words, they haven’t been allowed to develop a true sense of property rights, of “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”, of an understanding of how a principled, capitalist society works (each person’s self interest and RESPECT for the rights of others driving the allocation of resources and the adjudication of law in the way most likely to benefit everyone—at least that’s the theory), and of what freedom and RESPONSIBILITY means.
The point is, THEY WILL. I have faith that the Iraqi people, once allowed to have access to the political process, once allowed to reap the benefits of the wealth of their nation and the potential for global trade, will be a wonderful success story for the Middle East. And the rampant crime and looting occurring right now will be held in check by the fabric of a strong and developing society.
Posted by Kevin White on Jun 11, 2003 at 12:33 PM
“my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins” is nicely put. I wish our leaders shared that sentiment
Posted by K on Jun 12, 2003 at 12:55 PM
“I feel that many more lives would be saved if property rights were relaxed”
I have to imagine you are talking about someone else’s property rights.
You don’t want to give me the right to control your property do you?
Posted by Nus on Jun 12, 2003 at 1:16 PM
“You don’t want to give me the right to control your property do you?”
man, some of you have such selective hearing. with brad and nus, all they do is pull out some part of a quote someone else makes, ignore the context, and drop in their transparent “I Love W” opinion (and I just want you guys to know, it’s such a pleasure reading the absolutely small-minded, ignorant things you think… you do keep me entertained because you are just so gosh-darn predictable).
Posted by t. louis richard III on Jun 13, 2003 at 12:52 PM
“man, some of you have such selective hearing. with brad and nus, all they do is pull out some part of a quote someone else makes, ignore the context, and drop in their transparent “I Love W” opinion (and I just want you guys to know, it’s such a pleasure reading the absolutely small-minded, ignorant things you think… you do keep me entertained because you are just so gosh-darn predictable).”
You leftie hipppy cominist crakpot, you dont no whot your yakking about. Go bak to baton rouge, wherever that is. Is it Franceland?
Posted by G W Bush on Jun 16, 2003 at 4:03 AM
“You leftie hipppy cominist crakpot, you dont no whot your yakking about. Go bak to baton rouge, wherever that is. Is it Franceland?”
How do rejects like this even find their way into ITT, let alone onto the In-ter-net? I believe a FoxNews poll reported that the above response was seconded by 82% of numbskulls everywhere. God bless our outstanding public edjukashun.
Posted by t. louis richard III on Jun 16, 2003 at 12:14 PM
“all they do is pull out some part of a quote someone else makes”
Actually I quoted an entire sentence stated by “OK”. An entire sentence which conveys an entire thought. And this makes for poor discussion in what way?
I thought that by quoting a writer and addressing a single point, I might receive a response addressing that issue.
I am trying to make it simple for a real discussion to take place.
You, “t. louis richard III”, make no attempt at discussion nor do you make any attempt to address the statement made. Isn’t this statement part and parcel of the thrust of the article? Nevermind, I know you don’t want to actually answer.
You say “absolutely small-minded, ignorant things you think” after you assess my opinion as being “I love George W.” Is that because anyone who fails to join you in mutual masturbation must be for Bush?
I doubt you even know who the opposition was.
Posted by Nus on Jun 16, 2003 at 1:37 PM
T Louis Richard III,
What I did was pull out your quote and ignore the context and dash off an ad hominem rant. I thought the irony would not be lost on you.
Posted by G W on Jun 16, 2003 at 4:36 PM
“I thought the irony would not be lost on you.”
well, aren’t you just a clever devil. i must acknowledge my gross imcompetence in regards to the wit and class that both you and nus exhibit. somewhere i seem to have lost my way and/or grasp of logic. you, nus, always have an issue with the comments posters make, and i, in turn, have a problem with the general thrust of your “questions.” you’re a comment-board critic, and that is just pathetic. do you ever offer your opinion first instead of latching on to someone else’s and flippantly dismissing it? i didn’t think so. what do you ever contribute to any discussion? if you’re so concerned with what others think and really want to know the “why” of what they think, shouldn’t you use a less hostile method? you folks are so caught up in believing that your logic and rhetoric are so superior to everyone else’s that you fail to observe your own transparency. my excuse is that i’m just calling you out like you do to the others; that’s how i want to answer your burning, inciteful questions.
Posted by t. louis on Jun 17, 2003 at 9:33 AM
T Louis Richard III,
I was laughing with you, not at you. Too, my name is not really G W B but I figure if Bush gets to call himself President I get to call myself Bush.
Posted by G W on Jun 17, 2003 at 11:27 AM
i assure you, “mr president,” what once was lost, now is found… a nod and a wink to our affinity for the certain style, je ne sais quoi if you will, that endears itself to the both of us.
and by the way, i do believe it’s now called “freedomland.”
Posted by t. louis on Jun 17, 2003 at 11:55 AM
Brad, did you say “Also the best way to decrease birth rates/AIDS spreading (birth rates are just as big a problem) is to educate women, hopefully the missionaries will do that.” *groan* Brad, this is 2003…
as for the rest of your comments and those of other Bushites - educating yourselves would be step in the right direction. If you want to lean to the right, then lean to the right - but you can’t seriously tell me that this Republican Admin represents the average conservative. You should worry about taking back your party too. They’ve lied to all of us and not about private things like their sex lives, but about things that have an affect on your little life, my little life and the little lives of every other person in the four corners of this world. This isn’t about party lines, gentlemen, this is about what kind of country, what kind of world we want to leave for our children.
Please at least start questioning things once in a while. God gave you a brain - use it.
Posted by Moogoo on Jun 27, 2003 at 7:10 AM
A few thoughts:
Is it mere coincidence that the only AIDS iniative instituted by an African country that has been effective relies heavily on abstinence education? (Uganda). I think not. The fact is - and I challenge you or anyone else
to dispute this fact - the primary reason for the spread of AIDS (like
wildfire, as it were) over the continent of Africa is the extreme brand of promiscuity engaged in by African males. Hundreds of partners is not uncommon - until this behavior is transformed, no amount of condoms will solve the crisis. Africa could use a heavy dose of abstinence education -
the hatred of Christianity on the part of the left notwithstanding. The
author of this piece is simply wrong on this point.
Addressing his second point - I don’t know what the real numbers are (and I bet he doesn’t either). Nevertheless, it is simply not feasible to assert that America can provide drugs to every man, woman and child afflicted with
AIDS in Africa. Medication will only treat symptoms - not the root causes.
Until behavior changes, nothing in Africa will change. Again, no amount of medication will fix this. Besides, the author seems to dismiss the medication of 2 million people as token - this is absurd. That’s a significant number and it’s a great start! It’s certainly more than Clinton or any Democrat has ever done for AIDS in Africa.
I believe that the property rights of drug companies are pretty important-that is, if we want to continue to receive cutting-edge medications to treat diseases like AIDS. Piracy is not the answer to Africa’s AIDS problem and I would submit that the US should be concerned with the well-being of some of its largest pharm. companies. I am sure there’s some
back-scratching going on here, but that doesn’t bother me too much.
The only answer to the AIDS crisis in Africa lies in the hands of Africans. Until you and others on your side of the aisle recognize this simple and irrefutable fact, people will keep dying. GWB’s administration is the first administration to really attempt to address the problem. Clinton had
8 years to do it and he didn’t do dick. He talked a great game…but
that’s all he did.
Posted by will on Jul 8, 2003 at 12:43 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Bleifuss, are you saying we should not give any money? Its a shame you’ve been blinded by ideology.
What ideology would that be, Brad?
The hardcore left-wing ideology that says you must criticize Bush no matter what.
So if you were going to criticize him what would you say?
I wouldn’t criticize him on this, its a shame that he’s being accused of being evil for helping someone else out.
I assuming you’re asking what I think Bush does bad. I’ll tell you, border security, we have to stop the drugs from coming in, because if drugs are getting in this easy than terrorists can as well. I think the death penalty is ineffective. Bush obviously disagrees. Bush is horrendous on environmental issues. He is showing support for one of the true bad guys out there in Ken Lay (which is terrible example he sets for the nation).
So I’m not just some republican idealogue that spews out their talking points. But still, when Bush does something humanitarian, he should be applauded not criticized.
Don’t get me wrong, this criticism is not exclusive to the current admnistration, as the Clinton admin imposed sanctions upon the S. African people when their gov tried to provide cheaper AIDS drugs, my point being I’m not bashing Bush indiscriminately. While I appreciate that Bush is providing medication to 5% of the worlds’ AIDS sufferers, I feel that many more lives would be saved if property rights were relaxed. If he is truly doing all in his considerable power to combat AIDS why are his admin and the pharmaceutical lobbyists working on trade laws to make the medication less freely available?
Hmmm.
Hard to tell with Bush. All horrible presidents have done some good things and I feel most of the things he’s done under the guise of “security” or “humanitarian” reasons or whatever else the money phrase is for the week are done mostly for financial gain and to pay back his corrupt campaign contributors.
To what extent should property rights be “relaxed”? Or, to put it another way, to what extent should we damage the ability of drug companies to profitably embark on future research investigations?
While I’m an atheist myself, and I agree birth control devices would be a wise thing to include (and actually, I’m pretty sure the majority of Christians would agree with that), the concept of teaching “abstinence” and discretion isn’t a bad one. Or are we so arrogant to think that “those people” can’t help themselves?
Lowering the price of treatment from $15,000 to $150 a year? Does that have any basis in reality? Would that be a wise use of the coercive power of government, to force companies to take massive losses on past research? What do you think that would do to any future research endeavours?
Imagine you’re on the financial management or managerial accounting team for a drug company. There’s a seed of promising new research you’re considering undertaking, research that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars over many years, but that if successful will greatly improve chances of survival or quality of life (and not necessarily for AIDS sufferers). Unfortunately, you know that the last time, the government kicked your legs right out from under you and the company nearly sank. Are you going to be less likely to take on the new research?
But I think Brad had it right to start with. If President Bush committed $0, he’d be criticized. If he committed $xxx, it’s pandering, nothing more. But no matter WHAT amount of money was committed, he was bound to be criticized for it. And here it is. And what does it mean? To me, it means the criticism (on a variety of topics) is being irrelevant.
Bob Geldof seemed appreciative.
But in your third paragraph, you touch on a point you never came back to. What will the rest of the world do now? Will the contributions from the entire world minus the US add up to *half* $15B/5 years? I hope it does, and frankly, I hope the world tries to show up the US by giving a lot more. But I’m not expecting it.
Well Kevin, I am wondering how many tax-free government dollars have been granted to pharaceutical companies to assist them with their research expenses since AIDS began? I also wonder how much these companies pay in taxes, since most of them locate their headquarters in Puerto Rico, which is an effective tax shelter. I also wonder at their profit margins. I haven’t seen any negative news about pharmaceutical profits in this difficult economy, and government initiatives concerning Medicare seem configured to add a lot more money to their coffers. Interesting you are more concerned about them than the dead bodies piling up in Africa, or the AIDS orphans who are being scooped up by right-wing Islamic schools and trained in all sorts of unpleasant notions about America.
Bleifuss is trying to give us the whole picture, and poor Brad is happy stopping at the sound bite, like most of America. Too bad. Have any of you ever tried to teach abstinence? Guess what, it doesn’t work, certainly not as an exclusive policy. Rember adolescence? Hormones? You have to work with them, not pretend they can be taught away. Gay communities in cities all over the world have proven the effectiveness of free or inexpensive condom availability in halting the spread of AIDS. Brad, if you have a billion dollars to spend on a pack of ineffective but well-meaning missionaries, spend away. From what I’ve been reading, this country doesn’t. Bush isn’t being criticized here for spending, he’s being criticized for spending poorly and ineffectively, eschewing proven solutions for politically advantageous ones. That strikes me as completely valid criticism. And that this administration is once again aggressively trying to delegitimate an international agreement that battles for the health of the world’s most unfortunate while wearing the mantle of generosity is indeed cause for speaking out. Who have we helped recently? Afghanistan? Iraq? Both are scenes of chaos, violence, and rampant poverty. Where has the Bush administration gone where it left things better than when it arrived? Shall we start with the federal budget? Notice the patterns people, and put away your tired red, white and blue pom poms.
Robert you have no idea what you’re talking about. Numerous studies have been done comparing the teaching of abstinence to birth control. In the end, everytime, abstinence always wins out. I believe birth control should be taught, but don’t tell me that abstinence is less effective than teaching birth control. Its not true. Also the best way to decrease birth rates/AIDS spreading (birth rates are just as big a problem) is to educate women, hopefully the missionaries will do that.
Oh, Robert, you’re right, Afghanistan was way better off with the taliban, and Iraq was so much better with Sadam, please.
Bodies have been piling up for centuries, for a wide variety of reasons. Perhaps, in some far-flung future utopia, man will have the wherewithal to prevent such things. Until then, why don’t we stick to reality, eh? I don’t see how destroying drug companies with flagrantly anti-capitalistic government coercion would serve the needs, in the long run, of the vast majority of not only AIDS sufferers, but all disease sufferers.
I have taught abstinence, as a matter of fact—to myself. There’s also the idea of *discretion*. I will never understand the jingoistic attitude that says that “this group of people is too dumb to understand this idea” and “that group of people is too backwards to enjoy this form of government”. Now, I said before I think condoms would be a good idea to include in the relief package, but are you trying to say the people are destined to mate like rats, and there’s nothing they or anyone else can do to stop themselves?
Frankly, I find it astounding to think that man, ostensibly the most intelligent species on earth, who has created great works throughout history, is still an absolute slave to something as one-dimensional as the biological imperative to procreate… to the point that we’ll deliberately and repeatedly engage in a behavior known to have a multitude of undesirable and even deadly side effects. I’m tempted to paraphrase an old saying: you act promiscuous, you takes your chances.
But that’s the thing. Does everyone in Africa even know of the link between indiscriminate sexual activity and AIDS? Is it possible equipping people with some real knowledge and data could be beneficial? Or can they JUST NOT HELP THEMSELVES?
I’ll say again: I think condoms should be included. But the $1B is for education, not conversion.
If you like, just look at the relief package as a $14B/5 years package. That’s a hell of a lot of money. Let’s hope the rest of the world comes close to that, spending their money the way they see fit.
Iraq: surely, you jest. If there was an expectation that things were going to go smoothly after the first Saddam statue tumbled over, it was totally unrealistic. These aren’t the most principled people on earth, it’s true—they’ve hardly had a chance to learn and grow and show greatness. But they will. There was a news story recently about how many Iraqis are having trouble coming to grips with just what freedom is. They’ve never tasted it, never studied it, never had a concept of it. It is going to take TIME. Regime change, and a change in the form of government, is rarely smooth, peaceful, or free of problems that must be solved. That doesn’t mean you don’t do it. The people will be better off.
Kevin,
When you say the Iraqis “aren’t the most principled people on earth”, what do you mean by that?
Hmm, I thought it was evident.
In other words, they haven’t been allowed to develop a true sense of property rights, of “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”, of an understanding of how a principled, capitalist society works (each person’s self interest and RESPECT for the rights of others driving the allocation of resources and the adjudication of law in the way most likely to benefit everyone—at least that’s the theory), and of what freedom and RESPONSIBILITY means.
The point is, THEY WILL. I have faith that the Iraqi people, once allowed to have access to the political process, once allowed to reap the benefits of the wealth of their nation and the potential for global trade, will be a wonderful success story for the Middle East. And the rampant crime and looting occurring right now will be held in check by the fabric of a strong and developing society.
“my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins” is nicely put. I wish our leaders shared that sentiment
“I feel that many more lives would be saved if property rights were relaxed”
I have to imagine you are talking about someone else’s property rights.
You don’t want to give me the right to control your property do you?
“You don’t want to give me the right to control your property do you?”
man, some of you have such selective hearing. with brad and nus, all they do is pull out some part of a quote someone else makes, ignore the context, and drop in their transparent “I Love W” opinion (and I just want you guys to know, it’s such a pleasure reading the absolutely small-minded, ignorant things you think… you do keep me entertained because you are just so gosh-darn predictable).
“man, some of you have such selective hearing. with brad and nus, all they do is pull out some part of a quote someone else makes, ignore the context, and drop in their transparent “I Love W” opinion (and I just want you guys to know, it’s such a pleasure reading the absolutely small-minded, ignorant things you think… you do keep me entertained because you are just so gosh-darn predictable).”
You leftie hipppy cominist crakpot, you dont no whot your yakking about. Go bak to baton rouge, wherever that is. Is it Franceland?
“You leftie hipppy cominist crakpot, you dont no whot your yakking about. Go bak to baton rouge, wherever that is. Is it Franceland?”
How do rejects like this even find their way into ITT, let alone onto the In-ter-net? I believe a FoxNews poll reported that the above response was seconded by 82% of numbskulls everywhere. God bless our outstanding public edjukashun.
“all they do is pull out some part of a quote someone else makes”
Actually I quoted an entire sentence stated by “OK”. An entire sentence which conveys an entire thought. And this makes for poor discussion in what way?
I thought that by quoting a writer and addressing a single point, I might receive a response addressing that issue.
I am trying to make it simple for a real discussion to take place.
You, “t. louis richard III”, make no attempt at discussion nor do you make any attempt to address the statement made. Isn’t this statement part and parcel of the thrust of the article? Nevermind, I know you don’t want to actually answer.
You say “absolutely small-minded, ignorant things you think” after you assess my opinion as being “I love George W.” Is that because anyone who fails to join you in mutual masturbation must be for Bush?
I doubt you even know who the opposition was.
T Louis Richard III,
What I did was pull out your quote and ignore the context and dash off an ad hominem rant. I thought the irony would not be lost on you.
“I thought the irony would not be lost on you.”
well, aren’t you just a clever devil. i must acknowledge my gross imcompetence in regards to the wit and class that both you and nus exhibit. somewhere i seem to have lost my way and/or grasp of logic. you, nus, always have an issue with the comments posters make, and i, in turn, have a problem with the general thrust of your “questions.” you’re a comment-board critic, and that is just pathetic. do you ever offer your opinion first instead of latching on to someone else’s and flippantly dismissing it? i didn’t think so. what do you ever contribute to any discussion? if you’re so concerned with what others think and really want to know the “why” of what they think, shouldn’t you use a less hostile method? you folks are so caught up in believing that your logic and rhetoric are so superior to everyone else’s that you fail to observe your own transparency. my excuse is that i’m just calling you out like you do to the others; that’s how i want to answer your burning, inciteful questions.
T Louis Richard III,
I was laughing with you, not at you. Too, my name is not really G W B but I figure if Bush gets to call himself President I get to call myself Bush.
i assure you, “mr president,” what once was lost, now is found… a nod and a wink to our affinity for the certain style, je ne sais quoi if you will, that endears itself to the both of us.
and by the way, i do believe it’s now called “freedomland.”
Who pays for drug research. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/19/eveningnews/main216853.shtml
Dan
Brad, did you say “Also the best way to decrease birth rates/AIDS spreading (birth rates are just as big a problem) is to educate women, hopefully the missionaries will do that.” *groan* Brad, this is 2003…
as for the rest of your comments and those of other Bushites - educating yourselves would be step in the right direction. If you want to lean to the right, then lean to the right - but you can’t seriously tell me that this Republican Admin represents the average conservative. You should worry about taking back your party too. They’ve lied to all of us and not about private things like their sex lives, but about things that have an affect on your little life, my little life and the little lives of every other person in the four corners of this world. This isn’t about party lines, gentlemen, this is about what kind of country, what kind of world we want to leave for our children.
Please at least start questioning things once in a while. God gave you a brain - use it.
A few thoughts:
Is it mere coincidence that the only AIDS iniative instituted by an African country that has been effective relies heavily on abstinence education? (Uganda). I think not. The fact is - and I challenge you or anyone else
to dispute this fact - the primary reason for the spread of AIDS (like
wildfire, as it were) over the continent of Africa is the extreme brand of promiscuity engaged in by African males. Hundreds of partners is not uncommon - until this behavior is transformed, no amount of condoms will solve the crisis. Africa could use a heavy dose of abstinence education -
the hatred of Christianity on the part of the left notwithstanding. The
author of this piece is simply wrong on this point.
Addressing his second point - I don’t know what the real numbers are (and I bet he doesn’t either). Nevertheless, it is simply not feasible to assert that America can provide drugs to every man, woman and child afflicted with
AIDS in Africa. Medication will only treat symptoms - not the root causes.
Until behavior changes, nothing in Africa will change. Again, no amount of medication will fix this. Besides, the author seems to dismiss the medication of 2 million people as token - this is absurd. That’s a significant number and it’s a great start! It’s certainly more than Clinton or any Democrat has ever done for AIDS in Africa.
I believe that the property rights of drug companies are pretty important-that is, if we want to continue to receive cutting-edge medications to treat diseases like AIDS. Piracy is not the answer to Africa’s AIDS problem and I would submit that the US should be concerned with the well-being of some of its largest pharm. companies. I am sure there’s some
back-scratching going on here, but that doesn’t bother me too much.
The only answer to the AIDS crisis in Africa lies in the hands of Africans. Until you and others on your side of the aisle recognize this simple and irrefutable fact, people will keep dying. GWB’s administration is the first administration to really attempt to address the problem. Clinton had
8 years to do it and he didn’t do dick. He talked a great game…but
that’s all he did.
register a new account »Posting Security