Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

More Politics....


J.R.D

Recommended Posts

SOme of that is Bush's fault partly. He has failed to address some issues. But did Reagan start AIDS? No. But did Reagan's failure to address it until 1988 enable it to spread? Yes. Same thing with Bush. Is the economy, the ful vaccine, Iraq, etc, of the orgin of Bush or has Bush encourged them *unaware I hope*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 9 2004, 09:11 PM'] SOme of that is Bush's fault partly. He has failed to address some issues. But did Reagan start AIDS? No. But did Reagan's failure to address it until 1988 enable it to spread? Yes. Same thing with Bush. Is the economy, the ful vaccine, Iraq, etc, of the orgin of Bush or has Bush encourged them *unaware I hope*? [/quote]
Pleasssseee!! Give me a break!!
Reagan was responsible for the spread of AIDs!??

We all know what was responsible for the spread of AIDs!

Typical liberal garbage!
"We're gonna bugger each other and shoot up on drugs and get AIDs - Now it's the federal gov't's fault for not finding a cure! More fed spending is the solution to all our problems! If the gov't doesn't do something for everybody's problem, they're cold and heartless! We need ever more government programs for everything!"

Whiny, wussy liberals disgust me!

What this country needs is a return to personal responsibility and accountability, character, morality, and self-reliance - the virtues that made this country great!

People need to stop blaming others for all their problems and demanding money from the federal gov't for every thing, at taxpayer's expense!
The President should not have to be held responsible for so much, that We the People used to be responsible for. We're becoming a socialist nation of crybabies, always demanding more from an already bloated Fed Gov't.

As that Democrat JFK said, "Ask not what my country can do for me . . ."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Bush caused it but we were warned about the conditions in the plant a year ago and he failed to act. In fact, he didn't even stop the shipment, the Brits did. He refused to "pre buy" doses so that we are going to get so many for sure. Also, he has refused to support increasing the price (it is too cheap here relativly). He didn't expand the number of plants we buy doses from either.

Bush didn't take all the doses and ruin them, but his actions didn't fix the problem when they could have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 9 2004, 10:22 PM'] Pleasssseee!! Give me a break!!
Reagan was responsible for the spread of AIDs!??

We all know what was responsible for the spread of AIDs!
[/quote]
Reagan failed to address AIDS whatsoever. He didn't even mention it until 1988. The only other person I know of who denied something that big so long was Hoover's "There is no mob in America."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 9 2004, 10:25 PM'] Reagan failed to address AIDS whatsoever. He didn't even mention it until 1988. [/quote]
So? It's one thing to avoid addressing something you have control or power over, but how does a president have any control over the spreading of AIDS whatsoever? Why does he need to address it? Maybe I'm clueless, but I don't see the connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should Reagan have done about AIDS?

AIDS is not the president's responsibility.
The gay-rights crowd wants to make everyone else feel guilty and scared about AIDS.

Unlike they said in the '80's AIDS never became a major heterosexual plague in this country. It's (though there are of course, tragic exceptions) a disease primarily of homosexuals, druggies, and the sexually promiscuous.

Reagan was a great man. Let him rest in peace. He was a far better leader and of much greater character than your heroes Clinton and Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='voiciblanche' date='Nov 9 2004, 10:28 PM'] So? It's one thing to avoid addressing something you have control or power over, but how does a president have any control over the spreading of AIDS whatsoever? Why does he need to address it? Maybe I'm clueless, but I don't see the connection. [/quote]
He could have directed more funds towards AIDS research and education, it was and is a new virus that we know relativly little about. The CDC and Ft. Detrek (sp? that is the right one right, the Bio warfare lab?) are under the control of the gov't being gov't insitutions. When Ebola Zaire had an outbreak the CDC and the army both engaged in large and gov'tly funded research and preventition progarms.

Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1988, the last year of his 2nd term. Why? Because, as Socrates has repeated over and over again in defense of letting other men die while doing nothing, it is a "gay man's virus."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think education is the problem so much. Research, maybe he could have put some there. But I think the government is too involved in the daily lives of people and supplying the rights to so many that they don't have enough money for that any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about the eduaction that started in the late late 80's and early 90's. As a kid I rember a preview before video's with two guys talking about AIDS and what is being done and how it spreads and stuff like that. It is a simple thing. So the education did happen.

But we were slow to act because it was largly emerging in the homosexual US population and everywhere and one in Africa, it wasn't affecting, to be blunt, white heterosexual Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 9 2004, 11:22 PM'] He could have directed more funds towards AIDS research and education, it was and is a new virus that we know relativly little about. The CDC and Ft. Detrek (sp? that is the right one right, the Bio warfare lab?) are under the control of the gov't being gov't insitutions. When Ebola Zaire had an outbreak the CDC and the army both engaged in large and gov'tly funded research and preventition progarms.

Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1988, the last year of his 2nd term. Why? Because, as Socrates has repeated over and over again in defense of letting other men die while doing nothing, it is a "gay man's virus." [/quote]
Whoa, some harsh charges there!

As we all know, throwing federal money at things is the solution to all problems!

It's the president's job to find a cure for AIDS, and to provide us all with flu vaccines, and make sure everyone has a job, but of course, it's not the place of government to interfere with a "woman's-right-to-choose" while millions of [i]innocent [/i]lives are taken!

Chastity and morality is the cure for AIDS! That's not going to solved with taxpayer's money. (But of course if someone proposes using tax $$ to promote such things, the liberals howl!)

Libs, such delightfully consistent people!
(well, I guess they do consistently promote immorality!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ash Wednesday

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 9 2004, 09:11 PM'] SOme of that is Bush's fault partly. [/quote]
Well, that's true. Bush IS the one who makes liberals mad. 12 hours of standing up straight from protesting CAN give you hemorrhoids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will peoplec get the idea that the economy doesn't change overnight?

We rode Bush Sr's decisions through much of Clinton's terms, then Clinton's decisions spilled over into Bush's. We are recovering from a Democrat at the helm.

Think of the economy as a train: It don't stop on a dime. This ain't rocket science, people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Nov 10 2004, 01:50 AM'] Bush IS the one who makes liberals mad. 12 hours of standing up straight from protesting CAN give you hemorrhoids. [/quote]
Oh.....there are so many responses I'd like to give to that one!!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 9 2004, 11:35 PM'] Chastity and morality is the cure for AIDS! That's not going to solved with taxpayer's money. (But of course if someone proposes using tax $$ to promote such things, the liberals howl!) [/quote]
I would use tax money to run an ad campgain and yes, chastity would be a key factor, however, I would have started that in 1981, not 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...