Christine O'Donnell: HIV Gets Too Much Money

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 7:22 PM GMT
    Admittedly, this is quite old, but given her website, I dont think her positions have changed.

    Check out how she claims cancer is "an act of God" but "AIDS is linked to behavior." And we "create bias' by called PWAs "victims. She is really a disgusting human being.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 7:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAdmittedly, this is quite old, but given her website, I dont think her positions have changed.

    Check out how she claims cancer is "an act of God" but "AIDS is linked to behavior." And we "create bias' by called PWAs "victims. She is really a disgusting human being.



    Whether you agree or not she is right. In some cases cancer is purely genetic and there isn't a simple solution for preventing it. HIV is something you contract from deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk. Not sure exactly what her point was though.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 7:40 PM GMT
    mocktwinkieWhether you agree or not she is right. In some cases cancer is purely genetic and there isn't a simple solution for preventing it. HIV is something you contract from deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk


    Oh mocktwinkie, say that to the women who're raped every year in South Africa because of the belief that having sex with a virgin cures HIV.
    And I'm not talking about the prostitutes, I'm talking about ordinary wives and daughters.
    And the babies born with HIV via no fault of their own, or subsequently acquire it through breast milk.

    Christine is actually right (because of conservative pressure, high school students had abstinence preached to them which is absolutely useless in preventing HIV) and money was spent which will not save lives.. They did not have the right behavior taught them...which is WEAR YOUR CONDOMS!

    She is also right--let's all stop having sex and AIDS will be wiped out within a generation.icon_twisted.gif

    She is also right in another respect: God told the tobacco companies to keep making cigaretes and smokers to continue smoking, and therefore cancers are an act of God.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 7:54 PM GMT
    LOL. Yes, there are behavioral things we can do to reduce our risk of HIV and it's certainly helped limit the spread, but Q is right that many, many people get it unwittingly and via the same "acts of God" that O'Donnell thinks makes heart disease more compelling.

    But, as we all know, heart disease is actually mostly the result of behavior (food choices, lack of exercise, smoking, etc.), so her comparison was ridiculous. Please there is an underlying message in her statements, which is, "good people don't get AIDS and those whores, fags and drugs users who do deserve it."

    Meanwhile, I've done a little more digging and she's NOT a virgin but a born again virgin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 8:15 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidIn some cases cancer is purely genetic and there isn't a simple solution for preventing it. HIV is something you contract from deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk. Not sure exactly what her point was though.

    Yeah, I forgot that Republicans like you believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, or other forms of cancer. And the cancer-causing carcinogens from industrial pollution are a Liberal myth. Well, profits first, people last, as you Republicans say... icon_razz.gif

    As for "HIV is something you contract from deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk," that is wrong on so many levels that it defies understanding on a gay site. But perhaps good that you reveal yourself for who you are.

    We could perhaps talk about pediatric AIDS. (Have you ever attended to little children innocently dying, buying them the last Christmas presents they will ever see, holding back your tears so they won't know how grim their chances are, as you watch them waste away and die in front of you? I doubt it.)

    Or we could talk about those adults infected with HIV by unfaithful spouses, both straight & gay. Yeah, one spouse was "deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk" as you callously say, but what about their trusting and innocent mates? Do they get plastered with your heartless brush, as well? What was their fault?

    Your model is a right-wing disgrace, that has no place on a gay web site. You insult everyone here, and I think you need to reevaluate your position.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 8:20 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said Yeah, one spouse was "deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk" as you callously say, but what about their trusting and innocent mates? Do they get plastered with your heartless brush, as well? What was their fault?


    Caveat emptor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 8:41 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Art_Deco said Yeah, one spouse was "deliberately engaging in sexual activity knowing the risk" as you callously say, but what about their trusting and innocent mates? Do they get plastered with your heartless brush, as well? What was their fault?

    Caveat emptor.

    I guess little room for love & trust in your model for marriage? Whether legal, both straight and also gay where it exists, or else an agreement like my partner & I have, that says no matter what US law recognizes, we are faithfully married in our own eyes.

    There is no "caveat" involved, at least not for us. And for many gay couples we know. I presume you have never heard of love & trust? And if you have doubts, then agree to both being tested regularly and sharing the results. But what a terrible world when we must take such measures with our spouses. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 8:55 PM GMT
    Hold your horses, Art Deco. I'm just parodying the libertarian point of view in choosing spouses. icon_lol.gif Unless we can get the government to fund something like the FDA for marriages. icon_twisted.gif
    Wait a minute, why do we need an FDA for marriages when we have so many independent companies called Chemistry.com, Match.com, etc.? Can't we just trust they have your best interests in mind (since that will maximize their profits)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
    I stand corrected on this one. It is true that there are ways people contract HIV without necessarily engaging in risky sexual activity with multiple partners -- I'm glad that was pointed out. Nevertheless, it is THE prominent cause for the spread of HIV. I do think people and even gays in particular need to own up to the consequences of engaging in sex that overtly exposes them. It's very irritating when people who have needlessly exposed themselves talk about what victims they are in spite of their actions.

    That being said, you'll be singing to the choir if you think I need to be made aware that one's diet and lifestyle can be a huge contributor to things like cancer and heart disease in particular.


    art_decoYour model is a right-wing disgrace, that has no place on a gay web site. You insult everyone here, and I think you need to reevaluate your position.


    Another example of you using the word "rightwing" in a context that is totally inapplicable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 11:18 PM GMT
    It would be good if she was just a fringe. Lenin and the "Bolsheviks," and Hitler and the Nazis were fringe movements too.
    Repeat falsehoods ad nauseam (like calling yourselves the "majority" while being a minority), and people will eventually believe you...until they see how utterly ridiculous these untruths are.

    http://andrewcarr.org/?tag=humorThe fundamental difference between the west and its attackers was that we could laugh. We could laugh at ourselves, we could laugh at them, and relief from the burdens of life through humor, and in that we could find perspective. Given our moral descent into torture and the angry stridency that even 7 years later still marks our (esp the US’s) debate on terrorism, it’s worth reminding ourselves of this virtue.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 12:18 AM GMT
    Just goes to show you how short the public's memory is...10 years from now, Obama will be hailed for his health reform, but also criticized for his lack of spine in eliminating the public option.

    When something like the worst case (like Great Depression 2.0) doesn't happen, it's not registered in voters' minds: it's only the relatively bad that does (like the current rate of unemployment, when it could have easily been 16%). Just like that there's not more cases of food poisoning and people make a big deal about those Salmonella-tainted eggs.

    So yes, I believe Obama said some untruths, but at least he's trying his best to deliver what he did promise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 12:28 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidJust goes to show you how short the public's memory is...10 years from now, Obama will be hailed for his health reform, but also criticized for his lack of spine in eliminating the public option.

    When something like the worst case (like Great Depression 2.0) doesn't happen, it's not registered in voters' minds: it's only the relatively bad that does (like the current rate of unemployment, when it could have easily been 16%). Just like that there's not more cases of food poisoning and people make a big deal about those Salmonella-tainted eggs.

    So yes, I believe Obama said some untruths, but at least he's trying his best to deliver what he did promise.

    The odds are good that the Obamacare will be repealed and 10 years from now will be a distant memory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 12:41 AM GMT
    And people with longer memories will rue the day they allowed the bill to die a slow death by legislation, because by then healthcare will be 30+% of GDP.
    3644167643_570e468478.jpg
    Even with the so called Affordable Health Care Act, I expect healthcare costs will continue to rise...until people realize that not all medical technology is wise and that spending exorbitantly for the last year of life isn't worth it:
    http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 12:58 AM GMT
    Affordable as in it will allow fewer people to go into bankruptcy because of lack of medical insurance. Unless you don't know that medical bills account for more than half of all bankruptcies in this country even with insurance, because people lose their jobs and thus their insurance or get dropped by their insurance, and then cannot get covered again because of preexisting conditions.
    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
    Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

    "That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_StatesInstead of providing health security, the health insurance industry had, since the 1970s began to compete not on service and price but by becoming good risk differentiators, seeking to insure only those with good or normal health profiles and excluding those considered to be or to become unhealthy and therefore less profitable. According to a study from Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Law School and Ohio University, 62% of all 2007 personal bankruptcies in the United States were due to an inability to pay medical costs.[19] Many of these people forced into bankruptcy had medical insurance but the effect of caps, exclusions, and inability to fund or continue COBRA coverage was behind many of these bankruptices. Medical impoverishment is almost unheard of in wealthy countries other than the US either because the state covers everyone or everyone is obliged to by law to have insurance.[20]


    Have you ever been seriously ill, SB, in your life? If so, you wouldn't be so callous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 1:01 AM GMT
    But let's not stray from the topic of this thread, which is not to defend Obama, but to poke fun at Old Christine...or is it new Christine?icon_razz.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 18, 2010 10:25 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Repeat falsehoods ad nauseam ... and people will eventually believe you

    obama-change.jpg





    Off Topic Much? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 12:29 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidI stand corrected on this one. It is true that there are ways people contract HIV without necessarily engaging in risky sexual activity with multiple partners -- I'm glad that was pointed out. Nevertheless, it is THE prominent cause for the spread of HIV.

    Proving what? That because SOME people engage in irresponsible risky behavior, which can result in HIV infection, that HIV funding should be reduced for everyone across the board? Forgetting about those that you yourself now admit were innocently infected, through no error of their own? And overlooking the fact that money for HIV also goes to education and community outreach programs, to reduce risky sexual behavior in the first place, along with other non-sexual high-risk activities, like needle sharing.

    Using your model and that of Christine O'Donnell, I guess heart research & treatment gets too much money, too. After all, SOME people develop heart problems because of poor diet and lifestyle choices, not just because of their genetics. In fact, some studies suggest that MOST heart disease can be avoided or lessened, the development of symptoms being delayed, by making healthy choices, versus making poor choices. Well, then since many heart problems are known to be "linked to behavior" let's slash that money, too.

    And how about lung and throat cancer? Pretty strong correlation there to smoking, and some other cancers, as well. So once again these people brought it on themselves, because those US cigarette packs do have a government warning on them. No reason the rest of us should pay for a smoker's mistakes, either, so let's cut the budgets for lung cancer, that, similar to HIV, includes spending on education to discourage unhealthy behavior.

    Naturally I'd reduce the EMT emergency services budgets for victims of motor vehicle accidents, too. We'd save money by triaging for people that are found to have not been wearing their seat belts, especially in those US States where buckling up is the law. It's their choice to ignore those manufacturer warning stickers all over the car, and sometimes violate the actual law, so let 'em bleed to death along the side of the road, while those wearing seat belts are saved first. They have only their own poor behavior to blame, and I see no reason why my tax dollars should be used to bail them out of their own predicament.

    Does all this sound like familiar logic to you? Because that's what you & O'Donnell are in effect arguing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Have you ever been seriously ill, SB, in your life? If so, you wouldn't be so callous.


    What a condescending, idiotic statement. So if I was ever seriously ill, I would be magically "smart" about this issue instead of stupid, huh?



    Possibly. Hopefully. Sadly unlikely.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Have you ever been seriously ill, SB, in your life? If so, you wouldn't be so callous.


    What a condescending, idiotic statement. So if I was ever seriously ill, I would be magically "smart" about this issue instead of stupid, huh?


    It was a stupid question, evidently, eliciting a smart answer. I see seriously ill people at work, and it pains me that you cannot step out of your shoes to try to see it from their viewpoint. I wish you the best of health.
  • rndale

    Posts: 90

    Sep 20, 2010 7:27 AM GMT
    Anyone with half a brain knows that AIDS is derived from a illness found in Apes, that jumped species. And the cures that do exist work only for people who aren't exposed to all these antibiotics in Industrialized countries.

    What we need to do is study the Ape based illnesses in order to come up with cures, or we could just wipe them all out.

    The biggest threat is the over usage of Pharmaceutical Drugs in the Industrialized world, they don't treat the cause just the symptoms. There is no money in a cure, and a Fortune in a treatment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2010 10:55 AM GMT
    rndale saidAnyone with half a brain knows that AIDS is derived from a illness found in Apes, that jumped species. And the cures that do exist work only for people who aren't exposed to all these antibiotics in Industrialized countries.

    What we need to do is study the Ape based illnesses in order to come up with cures, or we could just wipe them all out.

    The biggest threat is the over usage of Pharmaceutical Drugs in the Industrialized world, they don't treat the cause just the symptoms. There is no money in a cure, and a Fortune in a treatment.


    This is an extremely misleading statement because:

    * The Simian Immunodeficiency Virus has been extensively studied. It does not cause disease in most species---a possible explanation is that it appears to be extremely old [retroviruses lose their effectiveness as species adapt to combat them---human DNA is full of such ancient inactive retroviruses].

    * While the interactions between antiretroviral medication and antibiotics are not well understood in every case, there are safe combinations. Consult a real doctor!

    * Antiretroviral medication is an effective treatment for AIDS, if taken properly and not stopped. They do attack the cause---the presence of HIV---and not the symptoms; the problem is the high mutation rate of HIV; a few copies are likely to remain.

    Incidentally, I am pretty appalled at mocktwinkie's [and others] callous attitude towards the millions of AIDS victims.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2010 1:09 PM GMT
    I don't know why anyone would feel the need to defend this lunatics position.

    Of course it is irritating to hear about people who needlessly expose themselves to any disease. However, to single out HIV when so many diseases have a behavioral component is clearly an issue of bias.

    Additionally, to make the statement that the spread of HIV is purely a behavioral issue displays willful ignorance to the matter. This is information she should have been exposed to if she was going to speak about it in the media. If she wanted to discuss lowering funding for HIV prevention, she should do so responsibly.

    She then goes on to say that individuals with heart disease simply change their diets and this is equivalent in responsibility to the general public abstaining from sex. That is a ridiculous statement. The equivalent of abstaining from sex is to stop eating. Wearing a condom during sex, or not allowing penetration is exactly the same as changing your diet. You don't eliminate the behavior, you modify it. Abstinence is an option, not a solution.

    HIV funding is not just about looking for a cure, it is also about educating people on how to avoid it. It is pretty obvious that many people, especially young adults and teens, are not aware or feel immune to the affects of HIV. We simply need to look to abstinence proponents like Sarah Palin to see how well that approach alone has worked for her kids. In fact, Christine herself has admitted to having sex as a young girl. She was just one of the lucky one's that dodged a bullet.


    mocktwinkie saidI stand corrected on this one. It is true that there are ways people contract HIV without necessarily engaging in risky sexual activity with multiple partners -- I'm glad that was pointed out. Nevertheless, it is THE prominent cause for the spread of HIV. I do think people and even gays in particular need to own up to the consequences of engaging in sex that overtly exposes them. It's very irritating when people who have needlessly exposed themselves talk about what victims they are in spite of their actions.

    That being said, you'll be singing to the choir if you think I need to be made aware that one's diet and lifestyle can be a huge contributor to things like cancer and heart disease in particular.


    art_decoYour model is a right-wing disgrace, that has no place on a gay web site. You insult everyone here, and I think you need to reevaluate your position.


    Another example of you using the word "rightwing" in a context that is totally inapplicable.