Ron Paul talking about AIDS.

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

    Jan 02, 2012 4:21 AM GMT
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1360001989001/rep-ron-paul-defends-controversial-aids-comments/?playlist_id=87485

    I'm curious what folks here think about this. Its obviously not very compassionate but I kinda like that the way Ron Paul rejects notions of collectivism.

    Do those of you who identify very closely with the gay and lesbian community find this incendiary?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 02, 2012 6:19 AM GMT
    The frustrating thing about the interview was that Chris Wallace kept interrupting Ron Paul before he could get the whole thought out which, in my opinion, at times made his point seem less compassionate than it really was. Regardless, I found his answers mostly consistent with what Ron Paul has always said -- that being that people in a free society should be accountable for their own actions, whether that be drinking to much and driving a car and hurting someone, smoking and getting lung cancer, or unsafe sex that leads to sexually transmitted diseases. Bottomline: Ron Paul more often than not comes off as a grumpy old man, and his overall presentation is just so rough around the edges that I think he comes off less compassionate than he probably is. One of the reasons I don't think he will ever get the nomination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 6:33 AM GMT
    Here's another Ron Paul from 23 yrs ago.



    The only way I'd consider voting for a democrat is if this man is the republican nominee.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 02, 2012 6:39 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidHere's another Ron Paul from 23 yrs ago.



    The only way I'd consider voting for a democrat is if this man is the republican nominee.





    Don't think you will have to worry about that happening in 2012 or any other year. What I found most disturbing about the above video is how disrespectful Morton Downey (a total PIG in my book) was to Ron Paul. Say what you want about Ron Paul, but the guy does take some bold stands, he always has, and he does not waiver or back down. Legalizing and regulating and taxing drugs is, admittedly, a bold "thinking outside the box" type idea, but when you weigh that against the billions, maybe even trillions, that have been wasted on the failed "Drug War", maybe it's not such a ridiculous idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 7:06 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidHere's another Ron Paul from 23 yrs ago.



    The only way I'd consider voting for a democrat is if this man is the republican nominee.





    Don't think you will have to worry about that happening in 2012 or any other year. What I found most disturbing about the above video is how disrespectful Morton Downey (a total PIG in my book) was to Ron Paul. Say what you want about Ron Paul, but the guy does take some bold stands, he always has, and he does not waiver or back down. Legalizing and regulating and taxing drugs is, admittedly, a bold "thinking outside the box" type idea, but when you weigh that against the billions, maybe even trillions, that have been wasted on the failed "Drug War", maybe it's not such a ridiculous idea.


    Well, I think you've read me enough that you know how I feel about legalizing at least MJ. However, on many other issues I think he's just a whack job such as his comments about Iran or we had no business getting involved in WWII to assist the Jews, etc.

    My point of the vid that I didn't clearly state or really state at all is - you think there's acrimony now take a look at this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 7:48 AM GMT
    Ed Koch on Ron Paul

    http://www.newsmax.com/Koch/ron-paul-iowa-gingrich/2011/12/29/id/422442


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

    Jan 03, 2012 1:02 AM GMT
    eron saidhttp://video.foxnews.com/v/1360001989001/rep-ron-paul-defends-controversial-aids-comments/?playlist_id=87485

    I'm curious what folks here think about this. Its obviously not very compassionate but I kinda like that the way Ron Paul rejects notions of collectivism.

    Do those of you who identify very closely with the gay and lesbian community find this incendiary?
    Paul's entire diatribe was all about the "insurance company" running the show.. and we ALL know what the PRIORITY is for an insurance company is. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 1:55 AM GMT
    Ron Paul: ‘Worthless’ to send foreign aid to fight AIDS in Africa

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/

    Reading various comments on Paul, I see some that reflect how someone might wish he were, rather than how all the evidence indicates he really is. I think the real value Paul serves is he is an excellent example for liberals to point to when claiming conservatives lack compassion and don't give a shit about anyone who can't benefit them.

    For comparison:

    http://www.modernghana.com/lifestyle/2767/16/george-bush-honoured-for-fighting-hivaids-in-afric.html

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-aids2010-bill-clinton-19jul10-98751964.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 2:50 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidRon Paul: ‘Worthless’ to send foreign aid to fight AIDS in Africa

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/

    Reading various comments on Paul, I see some that reflect how someone might wish he were, rather than how all the evidence indicates he really is. I think the real value Paul serves is he is an excellent example for liberals to point to when claiming conservatives lack compassion and don't give a shit about anyone who can't benefit them.

    For comparison:

    http://www.modernghana.com/lifestyle/2767/16/george-bush-honoured-for-fighting-hivaids-in-afric.html

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-aids2010-bill-clinton-19jul10-98751964.html


    And then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 3:07 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidEd Koch on Ron Paul

    http://www.newsmax.com/Koch/ron-paul-iowa-gingrich/2011/12/29/id/422442









    Funny that you would use Ed Koch's opinion about Ron Paul, which primarily is over Ron Paul's stand against "Israel Firsters" giveaway's to the tune of 3 billion aid to Israel every year.

    You know Ed Koch during Weiner's replacement special election, was against Obama, but pulled a Romney "Flip Flop" and now has come out very vocally in favor of Obama, who knows with a little more educating as with his opinion of Obama, Ed Koch may do another Romney "Flip Flop" and promote Ron Paul next week.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 3:12 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidRon Paul: ‘Worthless’ to send foreign aid to fight AIDS in Africa

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/

    Reading various comments on Paul, I see some that reflect how someone might wish he were, rather than how all the evidence indicates he really is. I think the real value Paul serves is he is an excellent example for liberals to point to when claiming conservatives lack compassion and don't give a shit about anyone who can't benefit them.

    For comparison:

    http://www.modernghana.com/lifestyle/2767/16/george-bush-honoured-for-fighting-hivaids-in-afric.html

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-aids2010-bill-clinton-19jul10-98751964.html


    And then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif





    Well you know how these far right fanatical conservatives are, they have very very selective memory, what facts aren't in their favor are quickly forgotten, easily ignored, or flatly denied because they don't want to be confused with facts. Reality's are like darts poking holes in their theories, so they run from them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 3:26 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidAnd then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I don't justify everything he did or didn't do. When it first appeared, it was considered a mystery disease. "The HIV strain was not definitively identified until 1984/85. So Reagan's first term was already over. " (Yahoo) It was also considered a gay disease and at the time thought to result from unsafe practices, so it did not get mainstream concern at the time. The articles condemning Reagan's inaction from what I have seen were written in the past few years, with excellent 20-20 hindsight. I'm not at all insensitive to it. I lost 2 first cousins, a brother and sister, to AIDS, and it devastated the rest of their immediate family. Many people my age also died. I don't consider that tragic history to be fodder for political discourse today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 4:19 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnd then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I don't justify everything he did or didn't do. When it first appeared, it was considered a mystery disease. "The HIV strain was not definitively identified until 1984/85. So Reagan's first term was already over. " (Yahoo) It was also considered a gay disease and at the time thought to result from unsafe practices, so it did not get mainstream concern at the time. The articles condemning Reagan's inaction from what I have seen were written in the past few years, with excellent 20-20 hindsight. I'm not at all insensitive to it. I lost 2 first cousins, a brother and sister, to AIDS, and it devastated the rest of their immediate family. Many people my age also died. I don't consider that tragic history to be fodder for political discourse today.


    Your historical revisionism is typical. And the hilarity of your not considering the Republican Party's awful response to AIDS beyond the pale as you want Obama to release his grades, support those who say he's never held a "real job", and think Dick Morris - whose entire career is based on his past association with the Clintons, is too much to take.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 5:01 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidRon Paul: ‘Worthless’ to send foreign aid to fight AIDS in Africa

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/

    Reading various comments on Paul, I see some that reflect how someone might wish he were, rather than how all the evidence indicates he really is. I think the real value Paul serves is he is an excellent example for liberals to point to when claiming conservatives lack compassion and don't give a shit about anyone who can't benefit them.

    For comparison:

    http://www.modernghana.com/lifestyle/2767/16/george-bush-honoured-for-fighting-hivaids-in-afric.html

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-aids2010-bill-clinton-19jul10-98751964.html


    And then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Make the government do something about it? Wouldn't some discretion with one's zipper work equally well?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 8:18 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnd then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I don't justify everything he did or didn't do. When it first appeared, it was considered a mystery disease. "The HIV strain was not definitively identified until 1984/85. So Reagan's first term was already over. " (Yahoo) It was also considered a gay disease and at the time thought to result from unsafe practices, so it did not get mainstream concern at the time. The articles condemning Reagan's inaction from what I have seen were written in the past few years, with excellent 20-20 hindsight. I'm not at all insensitive to it. I lost 2 first cousins, a brother and sister, to AIDS, and it devastated the rest of their immediate family. Many people my age also died. I don't consider that tragic history to be fodder for political discourse today.

    Your historical revisionism is typical. And the hilarity of your not considering the Republican Party's awful response to AIDS beyond the pale as you want Obama to release his grades, support those who say he's never held a "real job", and think Dick Morris - whose entire career is based on his past association with the Clintons, is too much to take.

    Apples and oranges. Incoherent. All of a sudden bringing up Reagan and the Republicans of the 1980s sounds like you are taking your marching orders from some left wing spin site, and this is the latest Hail Mary pass as you see yourselves fading into oblivion this year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 12:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnd then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I don't justify everything he did or didn't do. When it first appeared, it was considered a mystery disease. "The HIV strain was not definitively identified until 1984/85. So Reagan's first term was already over. " (Yahoo) It was also considered a gay disease and at the time thought to result from unsafe practices, so it did not get mainstream concern at the time. The articles condemning Reagan's inaction from what I have seen were written in the past few years, with excellent 20-20 hindsight. I'm not at all insensitive to it. I lost 2 first cousins, a brother and sister, to AIDS, and it devastated the rest of their immediate family. Many people my age also died. I don't consider that tragic history to be fodder for political discourse today.

    Your historical revisionism is typical. And the hilarity of your not considering the Republican Party's awful response to AIDS beyond the pale as you want Obama to release his grades, support those who say he's never held a "real job", and think Dick Morris - whose entire career is based on his past association with the Clintons, is too much to take.

    Apples and oranges. Incoherent. All of a sudden bringing up Reagan and the Republicans of the 1980s sounds like you are taking your marching orders from some left wing spin site, and this is the latest Hail Mary pass as you see yourselves fading into oblivion this year.


    I don't transcribe talking points from the DNC as you do from the RNC.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 03, 2012 2:52 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    And then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif



    Talk about grasping at straws -- HA! -- Reaching back three decades to blame someone is classic Christian73 tactic. "Let us die"? Really? Drama Queening is not pretty on you. AIDS was a huge crisis that caught everyone by surprise when it reared its ugly head in the early 80's. No response by Reagan, or anyone else, in the early stages was going to stop the onslaught. Reagan could have screamed "AIDS, AIDS, AIDS" from the rooftops and this wouldn't have changed much because it was all a big mystery at first.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    And then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif



    Talk about grasping at straws -- HA! -- Reaching back three decades to blame someone is classic Christian73 tactic. "Let us die"? Really? Drama Queening is not pretty on you. AIDS was a huge crisis that caught everyone by surprise when it reared its ugly head in the early 80's. No response by Reagan, or anyone else, in the early stages was going to stop the onslaught. Reagan could have screamed "AIDS, AIDS, AIDS" from the rooftops and this wouldn't have changed much because it was all a big mystery at first.


    It's just more historical revisionism. How about you all read some books about the AIDS crisis and the lack of governmental response from the Reagan administration for 7 years and then get back to me. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 3:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    And then there's always your sainted Reagan who led us die while never once mentioning AIDS. It took some crazed leftists to make the government do something about it. icon_rolleyes.gif



    Talk about grasping at straws -- HA! -- Reaching back three decades to blame someone is classic Christian73 tactic. "Let us die"? Really? Drama Queening is not pretty on you. AIDS was a huge crisis that caught everyone by surprise when it reared its ugly head in the early 80's. No response by Reagan, or anyone else, in the early stages was going to stop the onslaught. Reagan could have screamed "AIDS, AIDS, AIDS" from the rooftops and this wouldn't have changed much because it was all a big mystery at first.


    It's just more historical revisionism. How about you all read some books about the AIDS crisis and the lack of governmental response from the Reagan administration for 7 years and then get back to me. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I do not know whether Iam more outraged or saddened by CAZ's comment.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 03, 2012 4:48 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    I do not know whether Iam more outraged or saddened by CAZ's comment.



    You shouldn't be either. Monday morning quarterbacking is a sport anyone can play after the fact. However, the FACT is that during the early stages of the AIDS crisis there were all sorts of unknowns surrounding it. Disease specialists worldwide were grappling to get some answers. There isn't really anything that Reagan could have done in those early stages that would have changed the outcome. It's easy to point fingers and try and find some sort of scapegoat to something like an epidemic, but the reality is that a Democratic President may have handled it the same way until the scientific community got some sort of handle on what this disease was and the magnitude of it. One thing we do know is that early on they discovered that AIDS was sexually transmitted. Programs that urged loudly that everyone practice safe sex or risk infection were everywhere, yet people continued to get infected. That is not something you can blame Reagan or any other politician for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 5:58 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Upper_Cdn said
    I do not know whether Iam more outraged or saddened by CAZ's comment.



    You shouldn't be either. Monday morning quarterbacking is a sport anyone can play after the fact. However, the FACT is that during the early stages of the AIDS crisis there were all sorts of unknowns surrounding it. Disease specialists worldwide were grappling to get some answers. There isn't really anything that Reagan could have done in those early stages that would have changed the outcome. It's easy to point fingers and try and find some sort of scapegoat to something like an epidemic, but the reality is that a Democratic President may have handled it the same way until the scientific community got some sort of handle on what this disease was and the magnitude of it. One thing we do know is that early on they discovered that AIDS was sexually transmitted. Programs that urged loudly that everyone practice safe sex or risk infection were everywhere, yet people continued to get infected. That is not something you can blame Reagan or any other politician for.


    Wow. You're ignorance of the history of AIDS politics in the US is stunning. Everything you've written above is completely false.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 6:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Upper_Cdn said
    I do not know whether Iam more outraged or saddened by CAZ's comment.



    You shouldn't be either. Monday morning quarterbacking is a sport anyone can play after the fact. However, the FACT is that during the early stages of the AIDS crisis there were all sorts of unknowns surrounding it. Disease specialists worldwide were grappling to get some answers. There isn't really anything that Reagan could have done in those early stages that would have changed the outcome. It's easy to point fingers and try and find some sort of scapegoat to something like an epidemic, but the reality is that a Democratic President may have handled it the same way until the scientific community got some sort of handle on what this disease was and the magnitude of it. One thing we do know is that early on they discovered that AIDS was sexually transmitted. Programs that urged loudly that everyone practice safe sex or risk infection were everywhere, yet people continued to get infected. That is not something you can blame Reagan or any other politician for.


    Wow. You're ignorance of the history of AIDS politics in the US is stunning. Everything you've written above is completely false.

    You could choose to disagree that in hindsight Reagan could have made a difference, but what is stunning is your drama and completely false statement that everything written was completely false. Except for the one point you could debate, everything he said was true. Oh the drama, the over-acting....get out the Emmy Awards.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 03, 2012 6:07 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Wow. You're ignorance of the history of AIDS politics in the US is stunning. Everything you've written above is completely false.



    I came of age in my 20's in the early 80's and lived in one the ground zeros (Los Angeles) of the AIDS crisis, so I am hardly ignorant about it. You on the other hand were still in elementary school and likely were largely oblivious to the health crisis looming that was AIDS. I don't doubt that you have read up on the history of the disease, but I do doubt that everything you read was actually true. Pointing fingers at Reagan for the AIDS crisis is about as tired of an argument as you can mount. Nothing he could have personally done, short of pulling a miracle cure out of his ass, would have likely changed the outcome during his presidency. We STILL don't have a cure some 30 years later.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Wow. You're ignorance of the history of AIDS politics in the US is stunning. Everything you've written above is completely false.



    I came of age in my 20's in the early 80's and lived in one the ground zeros (Los Angeles) of the AIDS crisis, so I am hardly ignorant about it. You on the other hand were still in elementary school and likely were largely oblivious to the health crisis looming that was AIDS. I don't doubt that you have read up on the history of the disease, but I do doubt that everything you read was actually true.


    I'm flattered that you think I'm that young. I joined ACT UP in 1989 and participating in in their actions from then on. AIDS was identified in 1981 and many queer people worked tirelessly to get the federal government to engage to no avail until ACT UP started. The Reagan administration knew well what was going on but did nothing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 6:13 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Wow. You're ignorance of the history of AIDS politics in the US is stunning. Everything you've written above is completely false.



    I came of age in my 20's in the early 80's and lived in one the ground zeros (Los Angeles) of the AIDS crisis, so I am hardly ignorant about it. You on the other hand were still in elementary school and likely were largely oblivious to the health crisis looming that was AIDS. I don't doubt that you have read up on the history of the disease, but I do doubt that everything you read was actually true.

    Yup, I also lived in the area at the time and as I mentioned above, had 2 first-cousins die of it. They both lived in the Bay Area at the time. Ridiculous debating with someone so ignorant. And if he thinks this discussion will help in any way to keep Obama in the WH, he is sadly mistaken. Just more random death rattles from the far-left. Will probably see this type of grasping at straws. Maybe next they will focus on Mamie Eisenhower's alleged drinking problem, and they will be experts on that, too. That will help Obama as much as this discussion. icon_lol.gif