Thanks, Sam.
The Liberals Made Up AIDS To @#%$ With Our Agenda
I wouldn't have sex with anyone who had AIDS, condom or not. There's always that risk.
That's interesting, Kas.
What if the women you marry has AIDS?
What if the women you marry has AIDS?
I had an Agenda?
In other words, he wouldn't marry anyone with AIDS. :) I guess if they got it from a blood transfusion, they're SOL....
Oh yes yes, I totally agree. By turning off fox, rush, and lou, we insure that we all get our news from the same school of thought. as long as ideas endorsed by the liberal media are the only ones that become engrained in our culture, we learn to be free thinking. unless they report the same things that are reported on other tv stations, they should surely be shut down. remind me agian, what is fascism?
AIDS is a serious problem. I think only a fool would try to debate that it wasn't. But the media is one sided on both sides of the spectrum. I listen to as many sources as I can, and make up my mind for myself. Because neither Fox nor CNN and BBC tell both sides of the story. I've heard the AIDS reports on BBC and MPR and ABC and NBC. I've seen the Oprah with Nelson Mandella and the Clinton interview. Moving. very moving. Oprah brought tears to my eyes. But what isn't reported is the fact that conservitives and republicans do care about AIDS, and Africa. Which American President gave billions to Africa to fight AIDS? It wasn't the guy soaking up credit on Oprah. It was the guy who wasn't once mentioned on BBC MPR ABC NBC or Oprah. It was the terribly unpopular Bush. Clinton is popular now, after all, going to rock concerts and posing in African tribal wear is a very savy way to support AIDS..a great photo opt. but what does it really do? while he considers it his mission now, Clinton was once in a position to do a great deal for AIDS as President of the US, however, did very little to address AIDS while in office. The media might not have covered it like wildfire, but Bush did act on the issue.
So the media is biased, what else is new. But by watching only one source ordering others to turn off certain stations only makes peolpe into mindless belligerant zombies.
AIDS is a serious problem. I think only a fool would try to debate that it wasn't. But the media is one sided on both sides of the spectrum. I listen to as many sources as I can, and make up my mind for myself. Because neither Fox nor CNN and BBC tell both sides of the story. I've heard the AIDS reports on BBC and MPR and ABC and NBC. I've seen the Oprah with Nelson Mandella and the Clinton interview. Moving. very moving. Oprah brought tears to my eyes. But what isn't reported is the fact that conservitives and republicans do care about AIDS, and Africa. Which American President gave billions to Africa to fight AIDS? It wasn't the guy soaking up credit on Oprah. It was the guy who wasn't once mentioned on BBC MPR ABC NBC or Oprah. It was the terribly unpopular Bush. Clinton is popular now, after all, going to rock concerts and posing in African tribal wear is a very savy way to support AIDS..a great photo opt. but what does it really do? while he considers it his mission now, Clinton was once in a position to do a great deal for AIDS as President of the US, however, did very little to address AIDS while in office. The media might not have covered it like wildfire, but Bush did act on the issue.
So the media is biased, what else is new. But by watching only one source ordering others to turn off certain stations only makes peolpe into mindless belligerant zombies.
Bush gave money to fight AIDS in Africa? Sr. or Jr.?
Never knew that, either way... interesting.
Never knew that, either way... interesting.
No, that's actually a lie, Kraken. While Clinton may have been a conservative Democratic prick, he did spend money on foreign aid -- as every president does. It's unavoidable. If Bush spent more, that's only because Clinton was the most right-wing influence in the Democratic party.
Read your own party's agenda. Foreign aid does not make the cut.
A little bit of token foreign aid doesn't mean @#%$. America doles out among the least foreign aid in terms of total wealth, pretty much in the entire world. Don't get me wrong. The whole of your country is @#%$, left and right. The Democrats are not doing their jobs and haven't been for a while, but then I'm a socialist from commie pinko Canada, so what do I know.
My words in the title of this thread, you'll note, were not "The Democrats", but "The liberals". The fact is America is not digging into its pockets to help Africa. They do not give a @#%$. They come back with stories about how it's the fault of the Africans themselves, how they're bad and evil, mostly because they're black.
Clinton was a Republican with a saxaphone. He played up that political correctness while he gave handjobs to the right. "In 1997, the U.S. government spent about $7 billion on traditional, nonmilitary foreign aid, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the $8.1 trillion gross national product. That was the lowest percentage of any donor country and less than half the proportion that the United States spent just 10 years earlier." As you can see, he didn't set the bar all that high.
Read your own party's agenda. Foreign aid does not make the cut.
A little bit of token foreign aid doesn't mean @#%$. America doles out among the least foreign aid in terms of total wealth, pretty much in the entire world. Don't get me wrong. The whole of your country is @#%$, left and right. The Democrats are not doing their jobs and haven't been for a while, but then I'm a socialist from commie pinko Canada, so what do I know.
My words in the title of this thread, you'll note, were not "The Democrats", but "The liberals". The fact is America is not digging into its pockets to help Africa. They do not give a @#%$. They come back with stories about how it's the fault of the Africans themselves, how they're bad and evil, mostly because they're black.
Clinton was a Republican with a saxaphone. He played up that political correctness while he gave handjobs to the right. "In 1997, the U.S. government spent about $7 billion on traditional, nonmilitary foreign aid, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the $8.1 trillion gross national product. That was the lowest percentage of any donor country and less than half the proportion that the United States spent just 10 years earlier." As you can see, he didn't set the bar all that high.
Well. You learn something new everyday.