If George Bush had saved millions of white people from cancer ..

BAC...

I've never not praised Bush's efforts in combating worldwide AIDS. However, he consistently cut funds to help AIDS patients in his own country, which is shameful. This is one year, but the budget was cut every year he was in office.

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/bush-budget-again-underfunds-domestic-hiv-aids-programs1
"It is unconscionable that in the same week that the nation commemorates the HIV/AIDS crisis in the African-American community, President Bush puts forth a budget that fails to meet the challenges posed by today's epidemic," Solmonese continued. "With the Centers for Disease Control reporting that 46 percent of African-American men who have sex with men in five major U.S. cities are already HIV-positive, it is simply unacceptable that the president can find more money for anti-gay abstinence-until-marriage programs and neglect so many other domestic HIV/AIDS priorities."

National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed on Feb. 7. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, of the 1.2 million Americans living with HIV/AIDS, approximately 500,000 are African-American. Furthermore, only 14 percent of African-Americans living with HIV/AIDS have access to private health insurance while 59 percent rely on Medicaid and 22 percent are uninsured.
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
BAC...

I've never not praised Bush's efforts in combating worldwide AIDS. However, he consistently cut funds to help AIDS patients in his own country, which is shameful. This is one year, but the budget was cut every year he was in office.

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/bush-budget-again-underfunds-domestic-hiv-aids-programs1
Click to expand...

I appreciate your perspective.

Bush cutting funds for AIDS patients in America is a good conversation that I wouldn't mind having .. but that has little to do with his global accomplishments on AIDS.

Of course Obama supporters won't like my conversation on that either given that Obama has a worse AIDS plan for Americans than Bush did and I think that's central to the discussion to point that out.

AIDS_Activists_video_embed.jpg

Activists Question Obama's AIDS Plan
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/north_america/jan-june12/hiv_06-08.html

I think that sometimes we need to put away the politics and focus on the humanity .. and that is the point of this thread.
 
blackascoal said:
I appreciate your perspective.

Bush cutting funds for AIDS patients in America is a good conversation that I wouldn't mind having .. but that has little to do with his global accomplishments on AIDS.

Of course Obama supporters won't like my conversation on that either given that Obama has a worse AIDS plan for Americans than Bush did and I think that's central to the discussion to point that out.

AIDS_Activists_video_embed.jpg

Activists Question Obama's AIDS Plan
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/north_america/jan-june12/hiv_06-08.html

I think that sometimes we need to put away the politics and focus on the humanity .. and that is the point of this thread.
Click to expand...


A focus on humanity is the point of a thread that (wrongly) outright calls Democrats racists for not caring about Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa? Intersting approach you have there, BAC.
 
blackascoal said:
.. would democrats acknowledge that?

Of course they would .. irrespective of what he did in Iraq.

Yet, George Bush DID save MILLIONS of black and brown people from AIDS, malaria, and other diseases .. and many democrats who claim to care about minorities and under-served people treat that as no big deal .. don't want to talk about it .. don't want anyone else talking about it.

It's just black people .. not like Bush saved real people.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't agree with your premise. It wouldn't matter what Bush did the lefties here won't give him any credit. You would think Howey would credit him for his commitment to AIDS treatment given the lifestyle he leads is the number one risk factor
 
Howey said:
BAC...

I've never not praised Bush's efforts in combating worldwide AIDS. However, he consistently cut funds to help AIDS patients in his own country, which is shameful. This is one year, but the budget was cut every year he was in office.

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/bush-budget-again-underfunds-domestic-hiv-aids-programs1
Click to expand...

Isn't it odd that people in this country are still contracting AIDS at such an alarming rate given all of the sex education kids supposedly get and all of the money the gobblement spends on "getting out the word". AIDS is almost 100% preventable but it would appear that certain subsets of our society still hasn't figured it out. The rates of HIV infection in monogamous, heterosexual marriages is almost ZERO. Are they more responsible or smarter than their queer counterparts? Maybe
 
blackascoal said:
I appreciate your perspective.

Bush cutting funds for AIDS patients in America is a good conversation that I wouldn't mind having .. but that has little to do with his global accomplishments on AIDS.

Of course Obama supporters won't like my conversation on that either given that Obama has a worse AIDS plan for Americans than Bush did and I think that's central to the discussion to point that out.

AIDS_Activists_video_embed.jpg

Activists Question Obama's AIDS Plan
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/north_america/jan-june12/hiv_06-08.html

I think that sometimes we need to put away the politics and focus on the humanity .. and that is the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Again, that's mostly a global AIDS plan. Nationally, we have congress raping medicaid funds for Ryan White and other AIDS programs, and states doing even more.

I wrote about it a couple of years ago.

http://theworldofhowey.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/the-rape-of-florida-medicaid/#comment-577

and...

http://theworldofhowey.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/without-a-doctor/
 
Dungheap said:
A focus on humanity is the point of a thread that (wrongly) outright calls Democrats racists for not caring about Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa? Intersting approach you have there, BAC.
Click to expand...

It's a real simple question .. would you and the rest of the deniers ignore Bush's accomplishments if he saved millions of white people from cancer?

I doubt it.

You can categorize that anyway you choose.
 
blackascoal said:
It's a real simple question .. would you and the rest of the deniers ignore Bush's accomplishments if he saved millions of white people from cancer?

I doubt it.

You can categorize that anyway you choose.
Click to expand...


(1) You presume, incorrectly, that people ignore(d) Bush's accomplishments in fighting AIDS in Africa.

(2) You usually have no trouble speaking your mind so I don't see why you don't just come out and call me a racist. Own it, BAC.
 
Dungheap said:
(1) You presume, incorrectly, that people ignore(d) Bush's accomplishments in fighting AIDS in Africa.

(2) You usually have no trouble speaking your mind so I don't see why you don't just come out and call me a racist. Own it, BAC.
Click to expand...

I have NO PROBLEM saying exactly what's on my mind. NONE.

If I thought you were a racist I'd call you one in a heartbeat.

I think you're a partisan .. no differently than a teabagger .. using much of the same partisan only non-logic..
 
blackascoal said:
It's a real simple question .. would you and the rest of the deniers ignore Bush's accomplishments if he saved millions of white people from cancer?

I doubt it.

You can categorize that anyway you choose.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, BAC.

I don't know of anyone denying his accomplishments on the left. The right, yes. There was a tremendous outrage directed toward the program from the right. What I recall from the left is "Well, that's great but how about our own AIDS patients?"
 
I still don't really get why we're required to praise the rare good policies of someone whose overall policies were overwhelmingly bad.

Where is that written? Is that really a necessity for me to show how "objective" I am?
 
Howey said:
Thats the problem, BAC.

I don't know of anyone denying his accomplishments on the left. The right, yes. There was a tremendous outrage directed toward the program from the right. What I recall from the left is "Well, that's great but how about our own AIDS patients?"
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I've had a plethora of conversations on this issue in the past week.

Republicans readily acknowledge his accomplishments .. as one would expect .. democrats don't want to talk about it, rather focus on Iraq solely.

This was a topic of much discussion at last nights townhall meeting about Obama's plans to deal with it.

See the post above this one if you still don't see it.
 
Thing1 said:
I still don't really get why we're required to praise the rare good policies of someone whose overall policies were overwhelmingly bad.

Where is that written? Is that really a necessity for me to show how "objective" I am?
Click to expand...

I guess we should overlook the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brown ppl in two unnecessary wars in exchange for some money bring thrown at black ppl in Africa. While black ppl in our own country were dying of AIDS daily.
?
Also ignored is that the driving force of the African AIDS relief was Laura Bush.
 
Thing1 said:
I still don't really get why we're required to praise the rare good policies of someone whose overall policies were overwhelmingly bad.

Where is that written? Is that really a necessity for me to show how "objective" I am?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's written anywhere but I do believe if a policy is good it should be supported regardless of who does it and if a policy is bad it's bad no matter who supports it. I don't think it has to do with being objective it has to do with doing what's right.

I don't like a lot of Obama's policies. As a result should I automatically dislike everything he does or can I still support specific policies that I like?
 
cawacko said:
I don't think it's written anywhere but I do believe if a policy is good it should be supported regardless of who does it and if a policy is bad it's bad no matter who supports it. I don't think it has to do with being objective it has to do with doing what's right.

I don't like a lot of Obama's policies. As a result should I automatically dislike everything he does or can I still support specific policies that I like?
Click to expand...

I support the policy, but not the man, and I certainly don't feel compelled to praise him.

Africa doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail free card for Iraq. Iraq is egregious enough, imo, to negate most of whatever good GW Bush did. It wasn't just a bad policy; it was a defining event in his Presidency, and something for which I could write endlessly about the arrogance of the decision, the incompetence of the execution, and the wanton death & desctruction that resulted from both.
 
blackascoal said:
I disagree.

I've had a plethora of conversations on this issue in the past week.

Republicans readily acknowledge his accomplishments .. as one would expect .. democrats don't want to talk about it, rather focus on Iraq solely.

This was a topic of much discussion at last nights townhall meeting about Obama's plans to deal with it.

See the post above this one if you still don't see it.
Click to expand...


I guess you have a great case, BAC, if you take the view that anything that happened before last week doesn't count.
 
Thing1 said:
I support the policy, but not the man, and I certainly don't feel compelled to praise him.

Africa doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail free card for Iraq. Iraq is egregious enough, imo, to negate most of whatever good GW Bush did. It wasn't just a bad policy; it was a defining event in his Presidency, and something for which I could write endlessly about the arrogance of the decision, the incompetence of the execution, and the wanton death & desctruction that resulted from both.
Click to expand...

So then Vietnam casts the same shadow over Kennedy (who also has the Bay of Pigs) and LBJ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top