The Real Pandemic - Bush Hatred

[Etaoin]

RECEIVED VIA E-LETTER, so printed in its entirety. :bdh:

Bush Hatred - The real pandemic
Dec 8, 2005
by Larry Elder
What to do when you encounter someone who instinctively, pathologically hates President George W. Bush? Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean clearly spoke for many when he said, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for ..." Consider, for example, the following anti-Iraq war letter I received, and my attempt to engage the sender in dialogue.
"Dear Mr. Elder: ... How you can support an illegal war waged specifically to line the pockets of rich American Republicans, a war that has killed at least a half a million innocent Iraqis and now well over 2,000 volunteer soldiers, and has made us the most hated people in the world, is beyond my comprehension. I travel the world extensively, and let me tell you that the U.S.A. is completely out of step with the rest of the planet Earth. ...
"Sincerely,
"'Sarah,' retired public school administrator and university professor"
----------------------------------------------------

The Rest (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47798)

[Kathy29]

I recently saw an interview with some idiot who said that the recent war to eliminate Christmas from public was merely a backlash against Bush and the violent religious right now occupying the White House.

Insanity destroys the afflicted and after Dean and Kerry on top of all the other craziness coming out of the democrats, it appears that the democratic sickness is destroying all of them.

[DoctorDoom]

Here's the column at WND. Please trim appropriately. Danke schoen!

Bush hatred ... the real pandemic (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47798)

[Tumblehome]

Do you believe Bush is more hated than earlier republican presidents? Do you think Bush Sr. was as hated? Was Reagan as hated? Or is the hate for Bush taking it to a whole new level?

[DoctorDoom]

The hatred of GWB since 2000 is more virulent, more cold-blooded and more obsessive than that against any other president. The left has shed any pretense of civility and has sunk to a depth of odium and rancor unparalleled in our history. And it WILL backfire.

As they discover that their 24/7 outpouring of toxic waste is having only a marginal effect—and that only on people with igloo room temp IQs—it will inevitably grow more strident and irrational. They are too bloody stupid to understand that when something doesn't work, intensifying it won't work.

What is disquieting is the very real possibility that this monomaniacal hatred will result in violence in the streets, and blood will flow.

[DesertFox]

What is disquieting is the very real possibility that this monomaniacal hatred will result in violence in the streets, and blood will flow.And when it does, they will blame us for it. Just as they spew bilious hatred and accuse us of being full of hate.

[Tumblehome]

So if you do think they hate Bush Jr. more than Bush Sr. or Reagan, why do you figure that is so?

[Kathy29]

Bush hate is certainly unparalled in my lifetime. I think part of it comes from the 2000 election where they expected Gore to win. When it came close, they wanted to keep counting and keep counting the votes until it came out the way they wanted.

Certainly another part is their hatred of all republicans, all Christians, and all things different from them. Democrats, particularly liberals have one overriding belief and that is, they are the majority. When the fact that they aren't is tossed in their faces they go NUTS.

Bush is the symbol of their hatred of all things that aren't them.

[USPatriot8320]

Bush hatred is the most blinding hatred of any other President. My friends and I have discussed and so have politicals, about what will happen when tempers do boil over. I agree with Doctor Doom, it will be very very bad when it spills into the streets. We are no longer a united people, with the current climate, you can only wonder how long will it be before the war of words ceases and the real battle begins?

[Etaoin]

So if you do think they hate Bush Jr. more than Bush Sr. or Reagan, why do you figure that is so?

Yes Very definitely they are hating more. They hated Reagan because he won at every level and gave a voice to the Conservative elements. To this day, the consider him nothing but a mere actor, though they idolize the leftish actors. They were not livid about Bush 1, because he was a RINO. Dubya's elections were so close that they were nearly successful with their fraudulent votes that they almost succeeded in stealing each of those elections. Gore & Kerry were like scrapings from the bottom of a barrel, but Bush snuck by them!

The democRATS had held power since the depression. (No, I am not forgetting Eisenhower, He was a conservative, RED state democrat that was run in at a rigged convention to sink Taft, who had the nomination sewed up!) They successfully stole the election in 1960, and Nixon, like other Republicans was too much of a gentleman/statesman to put the nation through the strife of the contest. They appear to be adopting the same course to power that the Nazis used. The schools and media for indoctrination, adopting Josef Goebbel's approach (lie long enough and loud enough and you will get enough people to support you), plus their activities throughout the educational structure in squelching any speech through harassment and political correctness. I personally see little to no difference in this behavior and the Nazi book burnings. As accomplished thieves, they do steal and destroy numerous campus newspapers!

[PatrioticAmerican]

The irony is the Dems are responsible for the divisiveness in this country. Yet, they blame the President.

No. It's the Libs and their compulsive self-loathing and projection that have cause this fractured Union...

[USPatriot8320]

They have. I remember having lunch with an old friend, I agreed with the President on one thing and I got a dirty look and they got up and left.

[ldb83]

Self-loathing, that's funny.

Blaming liberals for divisiveness is essentially saying "It's YOUR fault we don't agree". That's pretty funny too. You can't blame only one side for the conflict of opinions it has with another side. Same goes for those who simply blame Bush. Thoughtlessly pointing fingers like that is a really easy and weak way to argue.

[USPatriot8320]

To blame one side of the other, I think is being to generalized. I think it's a mix of everything, the left, the right, the middle, everybody is just constantly fighting. But now we've gone from debating to name calling, what's next? Remember there's still 3 more years to go. How bad can it get?

[RayChuang]

And you wonder why Michelle Malkin wrote that book Unhinged: Exposing Democrats Gone Wild. Boy, does she have example after example of hatred for President Bush that is just flat-out lunacy! :shame:

[Wyatt_Junker]

You can't blame only one side for the conflict of opinions it has with another side.

You know, you're absolutely right.

http://hcgtv.com/media/xfiles/dennis_rader.jpg

[Wyatt_Junker]

To blame one side of the other, I think is being to generalized. I think it's a mix of everything, the left, the right, the middle, everybody is just constantly fighting. But now we've gone from debating to name calling, what's next? Remember there's still 3 more years to go. How bad can it get?

How bad can it get? If Churchill were alive, I'd ask him. But, what I wouldn't do is tell him to lighten up.

[midnite]

Well it hasn t reached the level of hatred that excisted between parties that occured between 1850 and 1860..yet

[The_Sonarman]

Self-loathing, that's funny.

Blaming liberals for divisiveness is essentially saying "It's YOUR fault we don't agree". That's pretty funny too. You can't blame only one side for the conflict of opinions it has with another side. Same goes for those who simply blame Bush. Thoughtlessly pointing fingers like that is a really easy and weak way to argue.

Welcome to the website, midnite.

Politics have been much rougher at times in the past. This is nothing. "We" (conservatives and liberals) are basically at odds on how the country is getting run. That's it. The nice thing is.... the Democrats are losing, and it appears they'll be losers for several decades to come.

I agree with Etaoin's "take". The Dems are (and have been) inflaming and whipping up the fury of their loyal party members. They're almost inciting to riot. I recall my history, and the Nazi party did the same thing, whipping up the hatred of their followers against the German Jews. Interesting how history kinda sorta repeats itself.

Let me see if I have the Democratic Politician and MSM view of "hatred" correct:

a. Hatred by an ethnic minority against the majority is "good" and "justified".
b. Hatred by an ethnic majority against the minority is "bad" and "unacceptable".
c. Howard Dean, the Leader of the DNC, gets a "pass" publically stating he "hates" Republicans.... which includes all Republican politicians and regular voters.
d. Any Republican politician saying the same against Democrats would result in flaming diatribes and calls for their resignation, if not calls for criminal charges, by the DNC Leadership and The Press.

Is this sort of a double standard? Personally, it just cements my attitude the Left Wing DNC Leadership and Liberal MSM are lower than scum.... not wanting to compare honest, decent scum with a slimy lower lifeform.

[USPatriot8320]

The parties themselves may not be getting physical in Congress, however, numerous brawls have broken out amongst the populace.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The question is not whether or not there is quarrel. Political, social or even spiritual. The question is whether or not the motive of one side of the quarrel is more genuinely necessary and justified than the other. And this will require a judgment call. Sorry lib, it is true. You will have to pick a side and throw down.

To condemn all fighting as equally divisive is unresearched and even worse, in itself a form of its own speciousness. Understand what we are fighting for first, for starters, then examine your motive. And, at the end of the day, if it is still true and reality itself bears witness to said motive, you will be found morally delinquent if you don't fight.

Regarding the Left, what really is their motive? Is it a love for America? Is it a love for our freedom, our way of life and the soldier? Or, like John Kerry, is his motive merely to go onto the John Stewart Show to illustrate to all of us that he is 'down with the kids'. Is it all just political theater? Or worse, self glory? Ask yourself these same questions right on down the list of names; Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Revrun Al, Cynthia McKinney, John Murtha etc. etc.

Ask yourself, by the very standard they use themselves(ie the language employed), which side of moral righteousness they stand... if any? What you will find is a treasure chest of military bashing statements, socialism and racial divide.

These charges are not and should not be a revelation to anyone who claims to be the owner of a pair of working synapses. CNN, NYT and the LAT repetitiously spews out these lefty koans of hate and division daily, using quotes from the left's parade of human filth by the dozens. Its easy and anyone can see the divide, by and large, using a preponderance of statements available to anyone with basic cable. And see for yourself which side employs the diction of division more frequently, even though division itself is not a bad thing. I would want to be divided from John Gacy... by a large cell wall made of non-porous concrete. I would want to be on the side of the Allies in 1945, or even 1938 for that matter. I would consider anyone who sides with the turbo-lefties of today's US Senate to be nothing short of a moral moron. If you choose to remain in a state of moral equivlanency and claim you are blonde toward reality as we know it, you certainly can, but if you do, understand that you must also like all blondes, make sure you get the dye down to the hair's root, practice a squeaky enough pitch to shatter a wine glass and sleep with the director of Kojalk. I hear he's gonna do some retro stuff real soon.

[The_Sonarman]

The DNC Leadership, and many of it's members, should rename their party to the AAA:

Americans Against America

[USPatriot8320]

You can't just blame the democratic party. The republicans have done very little to try and unite the citizenry except to play the game and blame the other side as well. We need true leaders, not people who are going to continue on this path. It's just a matter of time before the populace says, "If we can't even agree on what basic rights are anymore, what's the point?"

[Wyatt_Junker]

Unite?

I don't understand.

What does this mean?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Did somebody say 'division'?




The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
— Howard Dean

And there is no reason… that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs.
— John Kerry

The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.
— John Murtha

Contrast the Democratic reactions to respective advice offered by Congressman Murtha and Senator Joe Lieberman. The former is a respected but not nationally known Democratic figure; the latter ran for the vice presidency of the United States. The Democrats gushed over Murtha’s bleak Dean-like assessment that the war is essentially lost and that we must leave as soon as possible. But then when a vote was called on the issue, they voted overwhelmingly not to follow the congressman’s prescription.

In contrast, when Lieberman returned from Iraq and gave a cautiously optimistically appraisal that our plan of encouraging elections, training Iraqis, and improving the Iraqi economy is working both inside Iraq and in the wider neighboring region, he was shunned by Democrats — who nevertheless by their inaction essentially agreed with Lieberman and so made no move to demand an immediate withdrawal. How odd to be effusive over the Democrat whose advice you reject while ignoring the spokesman whose advice you actually follow.

Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Congressman Murtha represent the Democratic mainstream. And that’s the problem. None of them can be characterized as embracing the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan fringe, and none are even prone to the wacky grandstanding of Jimmy Carter or Barbara Boxer.

Yet what we get from the national chairman, the former presidential candidate, and the new popular icon — on the verge of the third and final election in Iraq — is a de facto admission that we are losing and must leave.



Victor Davis Hanson speaks (http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120905.html).

[Bob_Arctor]

The hatred of GWB since 2000 is more virulent, more cold-blooded and more obsessive than that against any other president.
I seem to recall an extreme amount of hatred of our last Democratic president, as well. Do you? And that was without the motivating factors of a very unpopular war and increasing deficits and the like.

Perhaps the hatred of Bush seems excessive to all of you becuase you are yourselves so far to the right? i.e., Bush is a mere victim of irrational hatred, but Clinton deserved what he got.

[USPatriot8320]

We can't agree on the war on terrorism, precautions we should take, we can't agree on what a right is, ect. Durning the lead up to the Iraq, many blue state residents protested in major cities. Shutting some parts of them down for days. Maybe it's just my young age but aside from the civil rights era and the civil war, I don't see any other time where we as citizens fought so much. Fights are breaking out on a small scale throughout the country. Just recently a 50 person brawl erupted in Houston, between Texas and Louisana residents, why is that? We're all Americans and we can't even seem to agree on that anymore. To blame just one party for this is simply a generalization. The anger however is mostly directed at President Bush. Some historians have even gone so far as to say that we haven't been this divided since the civil war, however the states themselves aren't taking up arms, but however, are pretty much "Spitting" in the face of the federal government. From symbolic gestures of dissidence to outright attacking the federal government for lame responses on a state to state basis to even the most basic things. How and why, did this happen? Has this always happened? I've thought about it a time or two myself and have had discussions with other citizens as to how they felt about it. Tempers are hitting the boiling point, especially since people feel disenfranchised.

[USPatriot8320]

I apologize for jumping around a bit in this thread.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Perhaps the hatred of Bush seems excessive to all of you becuase you are yourselves so far to the right? i.e., Bush is a mere victim of irrational hatred, but Clinton deserved what he got.

That's right. Pick a side Bobby. Throw down. Until you do, you are just a weather vane being attacked by a tornado.

The hatred is linear. My hatred has 100% unadulterated integrity. The same hatred I have for Ted Kennedy flows right on down around Billy Jeff's collar like shit down a hill.

[USPatriot8320]

I seem to recall an extreme amount of hatred of our last Democratic president, as well. Do you? And that was without the motivating factors of a very unpopular war and increasing deficits and the like.

Perhaps the hatred of Bush seems excessive to all of you becuase you are yourselves so far to the right? i.e., Bush is a mere victim of irrational hatred, but Clinton deserved what he got.


I was to young to recall, but Clinton got impeached, however, I don't think that tempers ran as high as they do with Bush? Did people shut down cities, ect? Like I said, I was young, at 15, politics was for the old folks :-p

[Wyatt_Junker]

... especially since people feel disenfranchised.

You must mean the Katrina 'victims'.

:rolleyes:

[USPatriot8320]

Not just the Katrina victims, in the last 2 presidential elections, miniorities have said and testified they weren't allowed to vote or it was thrown out, things of that nature. Also christians say they are being persecuted and shut out, and same can be said for the miniority and the liberal groups. Each side feels as if they are being cut off from the "process"

[Wyatt_Junker]

I was to young to recall, but Clinton got impeached, however, I don't think that tempers ran as high as they do with Bush? Did people shut down cities, ect? Like I said, I was young, at 15, politics was for the old folks :-p

The difference was that Bjay hatred was underground until it reached Monica levels. Bush hatred is and has always been MSM. Big difference. Marketing advantage, Jethro.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Not just the Katrina victims, in the last 2 presidential elections, miniorities have said and testified they weren't allowed to vote or it was thrown out, things of that nature. Also christians say they are being persecuted and shut out, and same can be said for the miniority and the liberal groups. Each side feels as if they are being cut off from the "process"

Do you believe them?

[Bob_Arctor]

Alright, so it's cool for you to hate Clinton, but when Bush is hated, he's just a poor victim. No one else has a right to hate a politcal figure, just you.

At least you're consistent in one area - you think that if you want to do something, it's always justified.

That's right. Pick a side Bobby. Throw down. Until you do, you are just a weather vane being attacked by a tornado.
The hatred is linear. My hatred has 100% unadulterated integrity. The same hatred I have for Ted Kennedy flows right on down around Billy Jeff's collar like shit down a hill.

[USPatriot8320]

Do you believe them?

Honestly, I don't know what to believe anymore. Our country may not be perfect, but it's still the best game in town.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bush has also enjoyed high levels of popularity for much of his presidency, thanks in very large part to 9/11. It has only tapered off in the last two years or so, as the masses have begun to wake up to his...failings.

[USPatriot8320]

His approval ratings have rebound to 40% at the latest poll. However, I think I recall Clintons approval ratings soared durning the impeachment process.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Alright, so it's cool for you to hate Clinton, but when Bush is hated, he's just a poor victim. No one else has a right to hate a politcal figure, just you.

At least you're consistent in one area - you think that if you want to do something, it's always justified.

I'm talking about the MSM grid-of-info.

Bush should be hated for his prescription drug plan, his Africa AIDS package/fiasco, nominating Roberts, not gutting the Sunni triangle a year and a half ago.

I hate Billy Jeff for a whole 'nuther slate of reasons.

Hatred, the real good kind, saves.

[Bob_Arctor]

I'm talking about the MSM grid-of-info.
Bush should be hated for his prescription drug plan, his Africa AIDS package/fiasco, nominating Roberts, not gutting the Sunni triangle a year and a half ago. I hate Billy Jeff for a whole 'nuther slate of reasons.
Bush has certainly done a lot to anger people on both sides. But until about two years ago, he got off very lightly, particularly from the MSM.
Hatred, the real good kind, saves.
Yes, of course.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Bush has also enjoyed high levels of popularity for much of his presidency, thanks in very large part to 9/11. It has only tapered off in the last two years or so, as the masses have begun to wake up to his...failings.

You mean wake up to Good Morning America. That will do it, failings aside.

The MSM hates Bush for every reason I do not. I hate Bush for what they don't say, and probably never will.

[DoctorDoom]

Bush has certainly done a lot to anger people on both sides. But until about two years ago, he got off very lightly, particularly from the MSM.How's the light where your head is, liberal?

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/LiberalPOV.jpg" />

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Bush has certainly done a lot to anger people on both sides. But until about two years ago, he got off very lightly, particularly from the MSM. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>How's the light where your head is, liberal?
Wow, another childish picture and partially formed thought from old double d.

Try again, and this time form an "argument." Are extremists capable of "thinking"? Show us, DD!

[Etaoin]

I seem to recall an extreme amount of hatred of our last Democratic president, as well. Do you? And that was without the motivating factors of a very unpopular war and increasing deficits and the like.

Perhaps the hatred of Bush seems excessive to all of you becuase you are yourselves so far to the right? i.e., Bush is a mere victim of irrational hatred, but Clinton deserved what he got.

No! Clinton did not get what he deserved! What he deserved was JAIL FOR HIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AND CRIMINAL ASSOCIATIONS as governor, and as president. He was inordinately fortunate that a GOP majority was elected to the Congress in '94 as it restrained his power, and He was the beneficiary of the peace that Reagan's actions brought about.

Clinton was (IS) a consummate FLIM-FLAM MAN. Unfortunately, he is emotionally arrested at an immature age of 10-12 years of age. He is psychologically incapable of relating to anyone or anything beyond the ME, ME, ME stage. He is intelligent and has unbelieveable charisma, which has enabled him to not only survive, but reach a pinnacle at which he was unfortunately, not only unsuitable, but incompetent. He (and She)obviously understood this because one of their first actions was acquiring some 900 FBI files...which assured that his peccadillos would be passed over!

[omegatrump]

Alright, so it's cool for you to hate Clinton, but when Bush is hated, he's just a poor victim. No one else has a right to hate a politcal figure, just you.

At least you're consistent in one area - you think that if you want to do something, it's always justified.

I'm sure that I am accused of Bush hatred. If I were to look into my heart of hearts to check and if I were to come up with some hatred for the Bush fiasco, there is no doubt in my mind that the object of my hatred would have Bill Clinton's DNA all over it.

The end result of the Bush fiasco is looking precisely like what Bill Clinton was headed for all along. The New World Oder.

It doesn't matter which side of the mountain you travel, to get to the fork in the river. The Democrats side, the Republicans side? What difference does it make when you both end up in the same place?

The spineless Republican Senate (the majority?) are for the most part liberal, not giving the belly aching Republicans much of an antithesis to the hated Democrats. Mr Bush, a liberal as well, does not give the so called Conservatives the springboard they need to launch adequate counter measures to the onslaught of the Democrats (the minority?).

What's the use of talking about a mute condition? Democrats bad, Republicans good, good republicans, bad democrats Huh. You take their labels off, put them in a bag and shake them up, reach in and get you one and you won't know the difference.

[omegatrump]

No! Clinton did not get what he deserved! What he deserved was JAIL FOR HIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AND CRIMINAL ASSOCIATIONS as governor, and as president. He was inordinately fortunate that a GOP majority was elected to the Congress in '94 as it restrained his power, and He was the beneficiary of the peace that Reagan's actions brought about.

Clinton was (IS) a consummate FLIM-FLAM MAN. Unfortunately, he is emotionally arrested at an immature age of 10-12 years of age. He is psychologically incapable of relating to anyone or anything beyond the ME, ME, ME stage. He is intelligent and has unbelieveable charisma, which has enabled him to not only survive, but reach a pinnacle at which he was unfortunately, not only unsuitable, but incompetent. He (and She)obviously understood this because one of their first actions was acquiring some 900 FBI files...which assured that his peccadillos would be passed over!

Clinton did not get what he deserved. He should still be in Prison. But what does the Republican champion do?

Nothing but help him clean his slate, and position himself to run for koffi's job.

The huge block of Americans that relate to Clinton do so on the ME, ME, ME stage as well.

If Bush, in his actions toward Clinton, is appealing to the same ME, ME mentality for political purposes, then his strategy is ill advised and counterproductive.

[Etaoin]

I'm sure that I am accused of Bush hatred. If I were to look into my heart of hearts to check and if I were to come up with some hatred for the Bush fiasco, there is no doubt in my mind that the object of my hatred would have Bill Clinton's DNA all over it.

The end result of the Bush fiasco is looking precisely like what Bill Clinton was headed for all along. The New World Oder.

It doesn't matter which side of the mountain you travel, to get to the fork in the river. The Democrats side, the Republicans side? What difference does it make when you both end up in the same place?

The spineless Republican Senate (the majority?) are for the most part liberal, not giving the belly aching Republicans much of an antithesis to the hated Democrats. Mr Bush, a liberal as well, does not give the so called Conservatives the springboard they need to launch adequate counter measures to the onslaught of the Democrats (the minority?).

What's the use of talking about a mute condition? Democrats bad, Republicans good, good republicans, bad democrats Huh. You take their labels off, put them in a bag and shake them up, reach in and get you one and you won't know the difference.

While, I THINK I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU SAY, I RESERVE MY RIGHT TO REVERT TO THE LIBERTARIAN POSITION.

[The_Sonarman]

While, I THINK I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU SAY, I RESERVE MY RIGHT TO REVERT TO THE LIBERTARIAN POSITION.
As do I.

[BarkleUSA]

Few are aware that the left has been methodically and systematically following a 40 year plan to transform the United States into a Godless communist state.

They had been succeeding unchallenged with only minor setbacks, the Reagan administration being the first. Bush senior got the “New World Order” back on track.

Dubya they figured could be marginalized and obstructed for 4 years and in fact was in lockstep with their ever expanding size and reach of government, doubling public education spending, a wide open southern border and adding socialized prescription drugs.

But then something funny happened on the way to Utopia – the Christian majority decided after 911 that we were mad as hell and weren’t going to take it anymore.

We have rolled-back the stone and the sunlight has revealed the most vile, putrid organisms slithering underneath – that had been multiplying and infesting America for 40 years unchecked.

As the sunlight pours in from Rush, from Fox News, from new web blogs and from every church pulpit - the serpents are screeching and writhing in pain as their scales dry up and bleed.

Although the screams are unpleasant, we must continue to disinfect America from this disease.

[DoctorDoom]

:thumb: :thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Do you believe Bush is more hated than earlier republican presidents? Do you think Bush Sr. was as hated? Was Reagan as hated? Or is the hate for Bush taking it to a whole new level?
The campaign of hate and lies conducted by the DemocRATS and their willing accomplices in the so-called mainstream media has been the by far most vicious I've seen in my lifetime (73+ years).

[BarkleUSA]

My theory is that their tenor has become so shrill in recent years is because they (the leftist) are no longer getting away with it. The leftist Master Plan to destroy America has been derailed.

Their minions in the MSM (Rather, Brokaw and Jennings) are gone.
Their plan to incrementally limit, then ban, Christianity has been exposed (and we’re taking CHRISTmas back from the secularists)
Their plan to elevate their appointed judiciary to trump the representative legislature has been set back (by Bush’s appointments to the SCOTUS)
Their plan to destroy traditional marriage and replace it with homosexual sodomites is failing (defense of marriage passes overwhelmingly everywhere it’s on the ballot).
Their plan to put the US military under UN control and our soldiers under the World Court jurisdiction has failed – and the corrupt UN leaders will soon be indicted and jailed for Food for Oil bribes.
Their plan to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is failing fast as the new Parliament elections are coming in less then a week.
Their plan to turn Bush’s Texas ANG service into a Watergate using phony documents blew up in their faces.
Their plan to destroy our economy by talking it down 24/7 has failed miserably.No wonder they are foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs and screaming like banshees… all that they had worked for over the past 40 years is being exposed, attacked and rolled-back.

We’re finally taking back America.

[USPatriot8320]

Why must everything revolve around homosexuals? I love the attention but please, there are greater threats to Christianity and to America, than the homosexuals.


My theory is that their tenor has become so shrill in recent years is because they (the leftist) are no longer getting away with it. The leftist Master Plan to destroy America has been derailed.

Their minions in the MSM (Rather, Brokaw and Jennings) are gone.
Their plan to incrementally limit, then ban, Christianity has been exposed (and we’re taking CHRISTmas back from the secularists)
Their plan to elevate their appointed judiciary to trump the representative legislature has been set back (by Bush’s appointments to the SCOTUS)
Their plan to destroy traditional marriage and replace it with homosexual sodomites is failing (defense of marriage passes overwhelmingly everywhere it’s on the ballot).
Their plan to put the US military under UN control and our soldiers under the World Court jurisdiction has failed – and the corrupt UN leaders will soon be indicted and jailed for Food for Oil bribes.
Their plan to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is failing fast as the new Parliament elections are coming in less then a week.
Their plan to turn Bush’s Texas ANG service into a Watergate using phony documents blew up in their faces.
Their plan to destroy our economy by talking it down 24/7 has failed miserably.No wonder they are foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs and screaming like banshees… all that they had worked for over the past 40 years is being exposed, attacked and rolled-back.

We’re finally taking back America.

[DoctorDoom]

Why must everything revolve around homosexuals?Because they insist on ramming their perversion down America's collective throat. If they don't want the notoriety, let them STFU, go back in their closets, and keep private what they claim is their right to do in private.

I love the attention ...A typical lib. It doesn't matter how negative the attention is as long as you get it.

... but please, there are greater threats to Christianity and to America, than the homosexuals.They're being addressed, but why should we ignore strident, offensive, in-your-face queers just because there are other issues?

[Etaoin]

Why must everything revolve around homosexuals? I love the attention but please, there are greater threats to Christianity and to America, than the homosexuals.

I'll have to say, Yes, and No to your post. If we want to discuss an individual who happens to be homosexual, I can agree to at least 90%.
However when I look at the homosexual community and their agenda, I have to be in 100% opposition to most of their goals.

I had never had a serious problem with homosexuals until their stand in the early 80's when they opposed every proposal of legislation to control the spread of AIDS. To this day, they oppose any action requiring responsibility for passing the virus on to innocent persons who share a needle or sex with one who is infected!

Unfortunately, too many of those who are infected, are willing to pass the infection on to anyone stupid enough to either have sex with them or to share a needle.

In addition to irresponsible behavior, the community has DEMANDED that everyone pay the taxes to take care of them when the results of their behavior become apparent. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy, rather an increasing anger at their communal irresponsibility!

I am at the point where I even consider it to be reasonable that anyone infected with AIDS be branded on the forehead so as to protect the innocent. This disease appeared in the early 80's and has been spread by homosexual activity, "swingers" and those using the needle to millions! Forget African statistics as they are not accurate! Had the homosexual community addressed the problem in the 80's at the early diagnosis, then millions would not have been at risk.

I have no desire to pay for your medications, nor the exrtended care required when diagnosed. It is an obligation your community should accept! The hetero-sexual community has very little (if any) blame for the condition which has been well understood for 25 years!

[Tumblehome]

So then, is your dislike moreso of AIDS infected people than homoxexual people? How do you feel about other diseased people who got it through stupidity and who were given it through carelesness? Is this unique to AIDS or something you apply to the entire population?

[USPatriot8320]

Doctor: You're a riot. And I'm not going back into the closet. It was hard enough coming out the first time, tripping over shoe's, getting caught in hangers, ect. :-p Well not all homosexuals are in your face. I don't recall ever getting in anyone's face about it unless a comment was completely off the wall, but that rarely happens around here.

Etaoin: Hmmm ok so what was the homosexual community suppose to do? Fund all the research to find a cure? You know, it's not just homosexuals, who are by chrisitian standards, social deviants. I'm also happy to say, that the Hetero-sexual community overtook us in the HIV/AIDS department. Also, by law in NYS, you are required to inform your partner or whatever that you are infected. It's quite easy to prove cause once you catch it you name goes on a list with the date. So if you catch HIV and you suspect someone purposely gave it to you, you can press charges. As far as marking people, what is this Nazi Germany? We do not mark our citizens here. Here's an idea, social responsibility, if you're retarded enough to have sex without a condom then you should accept whatever consequences there are. Ok, so should we use our collective taxes to also pay for someones healthcare if they get lung cancer from smoking, or sirosis of the liver from drinking? Should we also pay for the person who drove drunk, crashed and then became paralyzed? Hell, how about this? We call our Senators ect and demand all tax dollars get pulled from healthcare, if someone can't afford it, to bad, should've gotten a better job.

[Naturalized-Texan]

BarkleUSA & Etaoin: Well said!:claps: :thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Etaoin: Hmmm ok so what was the homosexual community suppose to do? Fund all the research to find a cure?
Since AIDS/HIV is easily preventable, homosexuals should have taken the steps to prevent it - abstinance or safe sex. Instead, homosexuals defiantly continued their deviant behavior even after they knew that the disease is easily preventable and how to prevent it. If homosexuals had taken the necessary steps to prevent AIDS/HIV, there would be no crying need for a cure.

You know, it's not just homosexuals, who are by Chrisitian standards, social deviants. I'm also happy to say, that the Hetero-sexual community overtook us in the HIV/AIDS department.
That is pure BS and you know it. Nearly all AIDS cases are the direct result of homosexual activities or can be traced to homosexuals who have AIDS, even including the minuscule number of heterosexual AIDS cases. There is no way that a dedicated male heterosexual can become infected with AIDS/HIV and the only way that a dedicated female heterosexual can get AIDS/HIV is to have sex with a male who is infected with AIDS/HIV.
Also, by law in NYS, you are required to inform your partner or whatever that you are infected. It's quite easy to prove cause once you catch it you name goes on a list with the date. So if you catch HIV and you suspect someone purposely gave it to you, you can press charges. As far as marking people, what is this Nazi Germany? We do not mark our citizens here. Here's an idea, social responsibility, if you're retarded enough to have sex without a condom then you should accept whatever consequences there are. Ok, so should we use our collective taxes to also pay for someones healthcare if they get lung cancer from smoking, or sirosis of the liver from drinking? Should we also pay for the person who drove drunk, crashed and then became paralyzed? Hell, how about this? We call our Senators ect and demand all tax dollars get pulled from healthcare, if someone can't afford it, to bad, should've gotten a better job.
Actually, we taxpayers should not be forced to pay for anyone's health care, no matter the affliction. Health care should be strictly between the patient and the health care provider. The government should not be involved in health care at all.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Actually, we taxpayers should not be forced to pay for anyone's health care, no matter the affliction. Health care should be strictly between the patient and the health care provider. The government should not be involved in health care at all.
'
:thumb:

[USPatriot8320]

I think we're off topic. I apologize, I'll move the topic elsewhere. For now: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2004SurveillanceReport.pdf

[Naturalized-Texan]

The Center for Disease Control has been unable to confirm even one case of AIDS among life-long, dedicated heterosexuals who never had a blood transfusion or never shot up drugs intravenously.

[DoctorDoom]

Doctor: You're a riot.Color me enthralled by your comment. :rolleyes:

And I'm not going back into the closet. It was hard enough coming out the first time, tripping over shoe's, getting caught in hangers, ect. :-pIf you had stayed in there, you wouldn't have undergone that ordeal.

Well not all homosexuals are in your face.I didn't say they were. However, the ones that are making all the headlines ARE, and to this very day I have yet to see a well-known queer publicly disavow the obscenities of "pride" parades et al. One would think that when the public perception of queers is shaped by the outrageous behavior at those vile events, "mainstream" queers would be up in arms to stop them. The lack of response is very telling. Silence = assent.

[ldb83]

Namely, which homosexuals are in-your-face? Which are making headlines? I'm not asking because I think they don't exist, but out of serious curiosity. I can't think of one.

[Bob_Arctor]

This is completely wrong. Any heterosexual can get HIV from another heterosexual. The chance of infection is lower than with male homosexual sex, but it's still very possible.

From that same CDC you claim doesn't have a case on record of heterosexual non-IV non-transfusion HIV transmission:

"Worldwide, the majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections result from heterosexual transmission (1). To characterize heterosexual transmission of HIV infections in the United States, CDC analyzed data for 1999--2002 from the 29 states* that have met CDC standards (2 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a1.htm)) for name-based HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) reporting for >4 years<SUP>†</SUP>. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that heterosexually acquired HIV infections represented 35% of all new HIV cases; 64% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections occurred in females, and 74% occurred in non-Hispanic blacks. To decrease the number of new heterosexually acquired HIV infections, especially among certain minority populations, culturally targeted education and prevention programs should be provided, and barriers to HIV care and prevention services should be removed.
The analysis included persons aged >13 years with HIV; infections were categorized as either heterosexually acquired<SUP>§</SUP> or nonheterosexually acquired. Heterosexually acquired HIV infections were further categorized as diagnosed with AIDS (i.e., during the same calendar month) or diagnosed without AIDS. New diagnoses of HIV infections were examined for 1999--2002. Data were adjusted for reporting delays, and HIV-exposure data were adjusted for reclassification of cases initially reported with no mode of exposure into categories according to historical patterns of reclassification (3). CDC calculated confidence intervals (CIs), taking into account adjustments for reporting delays and reclassification to exposure categories, and variance estimates were derived from monthly data submissions to CDC (4).
During 1999--2002, a total of 101,877 HIV infections were diagnosed in the 29 states and reported to CDC, including 36,084 (35%) acquired through heterosexual contact (Table (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5306a3.htm#tab)). Among states, the median prevalence of heterosexually acquired HIV infections was 27% (range: 13%--47%).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5306a3.htm
The Center for Disease Control has been unable to confirm even one case of AIDS among life-long, dedicated heterosexuals who never had a blood transfusion or never shot up drugs intravenously.

[Etaoin]

Doctor: You're a riot. And I'm not going back into the closet. It was hard enough coming out the first time, tripping over shoe's, getting caught in hangers, ect. :-p Well not all homosexuals are in your face. I don't recall ever getting in anyone's face about it unless a comment was completely off the wall, but that rarely happens around here.

Etaoin: Hmmm ok so what was the homosexual community suppose to do? Fund all the research to find a cure? You know, it's not just homosexuals, who are by chrisitian standards, social deviants. I'm also happy to say, that the Hetero-sexual community overtook us in the HIV/AIDS department. Also, by law in NYS, you are required to inform your partner or whatever that you are infected. It's quite easy to prove cause once you catch it you name goes on a list with the date. So if you catch HIV and you suspect someone purposely gave it to you, you can press charges. As far as marking people, what is this Nazi Germany? We do not mark our citizens here. Here's an idea, social responsibility, if you're retarded enough to have sex without a condom then you should accept whatever consequences there are. Ok, so should we use our collective taxes to also pay for someones healthcare if they get lung cancer from smoking, or sirosis of the liver from drinking? Should we also pay for the person who drove drunk, crashed and then became paralyzed? Hell, how about this? We call our Senators ect and demand all tax dollars get pulled from healthcare, if someone can't afford it, to bad, should've gotten a better job.

In the first place, my animosity is primarilly directed toward those who know they are infected and do not warn their partners that they are infected! In my opinion, they are then, guilty of pre-meditated murder!

2 nd. There are far too many who, knowing that they are infected, don't give a damn, and proceed to infect others without warning.....Try Sloppy Joe's in Key West!, Fla.

The facts are that this plague (there is no better word for it) originated within the homosexual community, and then was widely spread by swingers and druggies.

My view is that those who are infected (tend that means take care of) for those who have been contaminated during such time as they require personal care. It is not rational nor practical to demand that any one else care for those who were (are) infected! Their society should, NO Must accept responsibility, and take care of those for whom they are respinsible!

[DoctorDoom]

This is completely wrong. Any heterosexual can get HIV from another heterosexual. The chance of infection is lower than with male homosexual sex, but it's still very possible.Possibility does not equate to probability. It is possible that if one fires a BB gun at random in Yankee Stadium, he can hit a pigeon flying inside of it.

The statistics re HIV transmitted by heterosexual intercourse are far lower than for homos buggering each other hundreds of times a year. Of course that fact is anathema to liberals, to whom AIDS and homos are both politically correct. They must thus try feverishly to disassociate queer sexual behavior from rampant STDs in the queer "community". Their approach is typical liberal rhetoric: "Yeah, but ..."

The facts are irrefutable: in the USofA, AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of queers and drug addicts.

[Naturalized-Texan]

This is completely wrong. Any heterosexual can get HIV from another heterosexual. The chance of infection is lower than with male homosexual sex, but it's still very possible.

From that same CDC you claim doesn't have a case on record of heterosexual non-IV non-transfusion HIV transmission:
Your post misrepresented (deliberately?) my point that "The Center for Disease Control has been unable to confirm even one case of AIDS among life-long, dedicated heterosexuals who never had a blood transfusion or never shot up drugs intravenously."

However, I shall clarify:

According to the CDC, AIDS from heterosexual contact involved having sex with IV drug users or women having sex with a bisexual male or having sex with someone who got AIDS from a blood transfusion or having "sex with HIV-infected person, risk not specified." In other words, all cases of heterosexual AIDS came from sexual contact with an already infected sex partner and, therefore, can be traced back directly to some homosexual who had AIDS. All AIDS in the U.S. can be traced back to homosexuals who had unprotected sex.

[Bob_Arctor]

Possibility does not equate to probability. It is possible that if one fires a BB gun at random in Yankee Stadium, he can hit a pigeon flying inside of it.
Quite true. The odds of hetero transmission are far lower than male homosexual transmission. Of course, female homosexual sex has the lowest transmission rate of all.


But N-T claimed that the CDC had "not one" case of someone being infected with HIV through heterosexual activity. This is simply false.

The statistics re HIV transmitted by heterosexual intercourse are far lower than for homos buggering each other hundreds of times a year. Of course that fact is anathema to liberals, to whom AIDS and homos are both politically correct. They must thus try feverishly to disassociate queer sexual behavior from rampant STDs in the queer "community". Their approach is typical liberal rhetoric: "Yeah, but ..."
The facts are irrefutable: in the USofA, AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of queers and drug addicts.

About 35% of new cases are among heterosexuals in the US. Worldwide, heterosexuals are the majority of new cases.

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">This is completely wrong. Any heterosexual can get HIV from another heterosexual. The chance of infection is lower than with male homosexual sex, but it's still very possible.

From that same CDC you claim doesn't have a case on record of heterosexual non-IV non-transfusion HIV transmission: </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Your post misrepresented (deliberately?) my point that "The Center for Disease Control has been unable to confirm even one case of AIDS among life-long, dedicated heterosexuals who never had a blood transfusion or never shot up drugs intravenously."

I would not deliberately misrepresent you. However, I may have misunderstood.

According to the CDC, AIDS from heterosexual contact involved having sex with IV drug users or women having sex with a bisexual male or having sex with someone who got AIDS from a blood transfusion or having "sex with HIV-infected person, risk not specified." In other words, all cases of heterosexual AIDS came from sexual contact with an already infected sex partner and, therefore, can be traced back directly to some homosexual who had AIDS. All AIDS in the U.S. can be traced back to homosexuals who had unprotected sex.

Well, I'm not aware that the CDC makes such distinctions as you make in your first sentence. HIV is transmitted heterosexually when an infected person has heterosexual intercourse with someone who is not infected, and infects them. The source of the originally infected persons' HIV is irrelevant. HIV passes easily between heterosexuals.

You stated earlier that there is not "even one case of AIDS among life-long, dedicated heterosexuals who never had a blood transfusion or never shot up drugs intravenously." This is clearly false. There are many such cases. If someone is infected - by any means - and goes on to infect others through heterosexual sex, that is heterosexual transmission. Do you really think that heterosexual transmission is really homosexual transmission because the early HIV cases were among homosexuals?


<TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TH bgColor=#7093db rowSpan=2>Exposure Category</TH><TH bgColor=#7093db colSpan=3>Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003</TH></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#7093db>Male</TH><TH bgColor=#7093db>Female</TH><TH bgColor=#7093db>Total</TH></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Male-to-male sexual contact</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>17,969</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>-</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>17,969</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Injection Drug Use</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>6,353</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>3,096</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>9,449</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>1,877</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>-</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>1,877</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Heterosexual contact</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>5,133</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>8,127</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>13,260</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Other<SUP>*</SUP></TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>281</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>276</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>557</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

*</SUPER> Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

[DoctorDoom]

Raw numbers are deceptive.

Studies indicate that the number of exclusively homosexual people is <2% of the population. Ergo <2% of males are homosexual. In the 2000 census (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt), there were 134,979,000 males and 141,080,000 females, for 276,059,000 total. Males were about 48.9% of the total.

The U.S. POPClock Projection (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) is at this moment 297,870,801. Assuming the same 48.9% males, there are 145,658,822 males. Allowing a whole 2% of them to be queer, that means that 2,913,176 of them are poufs.

Now look at your numbers.

Male-to-male sexual contact - 17,969. Therefore there is one case for each 162 queer males.

Heterosexual contact - 5,133. This is not broken down by sex, ergo we must assume that the number refers to the entire heterosexual population. Allowing 2% homos, that means that 291,913,385 heteros are affliced with 5,133 cases. Thus there is one case per 56,870 heteros.

Based on those numbers, 56870/162 = 351. AIDS is therefore 351 times as prevalent amongst fags as amongst straights.

HIV passes easily between heterosexuals.Not through heterosexual copulation, kid. Since both organs are designed for it, there is little to no chance of torn skin to allow a transmission path for the virus. The fact is born out in Nevada, where <s>whores </s> sex workers are by state law examined monthly.

Recent research indicates that over one million women in the United States earn their living by full-time prostitution. Furthermore, roughly one in every six American men has been a willing client of a prostitute within the past five years. Even more interesting and alarming is the fact that engaging in sex with a prostitute is now the third most common way for an American male to contract the AIDS virus.

Ironically perhaps, the rising threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases has become one of the most compelling arguments for the complete legalization of prostitution. According to current evidence, roughly half of the street prostitutes in Washington, D.C., and New York City are HIV-positive. In Newark, New Jersey, the estimate is that close to 60% of all prostitutes carry the AIDS virus. Yet, in the relatively "free market" of Nevada, where prostitution is legal, not one (as of 1989) of the state-licensed prostitutes has ever tested positive for AIDS.The Case for Legalized Prostitution (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1293e.asp)

Why are the Nevada pros not afflicted? Are they not performing the same sex acts as the DC/NY/NJ whores? Obviously, intercourse is not the only factor.

Biologically, hetero copulation is NOT an effective means of transmitting HIV, the BS from the pro-queer crowd notwithstanding.

[Bob_Arctor]

Studies indicate that the number of exclusively homosexual people is <2% of the population. Ergo <2% of males are homosexual. In the 2000 census (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt), there were 134,979,000 males and 141,080,000 females, for 276,059,000 total. Males were about 48.9% of the total.
The U.S. POPClock Projection (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) is at this moment 297,870,801. Assuming the same 48.9% males, there are 145,658,822 males. Allowing a whole 2% of them to be queer, that means that 2,913,176 of them are poufs.
Now look at your numbers.
Male-to-male sexual contact - 17,969. Therefore there is one case for each 162 queer males.
Heterosexual contact - 5,133. This is not broken down by sex, ergo we must assume that the number refers to the entire heterosexual population. Allowing 2% homos, that means that 291,913,385 heteros are affliced with 5,133 cases. Thus there is one case per 56,870 heteros.
Based on those numbers, 56870/162 = 351. AIDS is therefore 351 times as prevalent amongst fags as amongst straights.

I accept that male homosexual activity is far more likely to transmit HIV. This is no secret, and I have stated as such in the last few posts. But N-T claimed that there are NO cases of hetero transmission. This is simply false, and was the point I addressed.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">HIV passes easily between heterosexuals. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Not through heterosexual copulation, kid. Since both organs are designed for it, there is little to no chance of torn skin to allow a transmission path for the virus.
Are you insane? It transmits fairly easily. This also is no secret. Otherwise how did the 8,000+ women infected get it?

The fact is born out in Nevada, where <S>whores </S>sex workers are by state law examined monthly.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Recent research indicates that over one million women in the United States earn their living by full-time prostitution. Furthermore, roughly one in every six American men has been a willing client of a prostitute within the past five years. Even more interesting and alarming is the fact that engaging in sex with a prostitute is now the third most common way for an American male to contract the AIDS virus.

Ironically perhaps, the rising threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases has become one of the most compelling arguments for the complete legalization of prostitution. According to current evidence, roughly half of the street prostitutes in Washington, D.C., and New York City are HIV-positive. In Newark, New Jersey, the estimate is that close to 60% of all prostitutes carry the AIDS virus. Yet, in the relatively "free market" of Nevada, where prostitution is legal, not one (as of 1989) of the state-licensed prostitutes has ever tested positive for AIDS. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Why are the Nevada pros not afflicted? Are they not performing the same sex acts as the DC/NY/NJ whores? Obviously, intercourse is not the only factor.
If you would have even read what you quoted, you'd see what is written in the first paragraph.

"According to current evidence, roughly half of the street prostitutes in Washington, D.C., and New York City are HIV-positive. In Newark, New Jersey, the estimate is that close to 60% of all prostitutes carry the AIDS virus."

Therefore heterosexual sex transmits it just fine.

Also, the factor you don't seem to have considered is that the women in NV work in conditions where they can enforce the use of condoms. Women elsewhere cannot. Condoms are extremely effective in preventing transmission.

Biologically, hetero copulation is NOT an effective means of transmitting HIV, the BS from the pro-queer crowd notwithstanding.
Let's return to the chart:

<TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TH bgColor=#7093db rowSpan=2>Exposure Category</TH><TH bgColor=#7093db colSpan=3>Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003</TH></TR><TR><TH bgColor=#7093db>Male</TH><TH bgColor=#7093db>Female</TH><TH bgColor=#7093db>Total</TH></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Male-to-male sexual contact</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>17,969</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>-</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>17,969</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Injection Drug Use</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>6,353</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>3,096</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>9,449</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>1,877</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>-</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>1,877</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Heterosexual contact</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>5,133</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>8,127</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>13,260</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#99ccff>Other<SUP>*</SUP></TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>281</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>276</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#e8e8e8>557</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


13,260 people got it through heterosexual contact. That seems pretty effective as a route of transmission to me!

Further, the CDC points out that worldwide heterosexual transmission is the leading route of infection. These are the facts.

[DesertFox]

Worldwide data on heterosexual transmission of AIDS are extremely doubtful. I posted an article here over a year ago from Scientific American. Africans report almost anything -- a fever, a headache, whatever -- as AIDS because that gets them more AIDS money from the West -- which not only brings in more AIDS cocktails, but more medical supplies period. Reporting malaria or scabies or whatever gets them only the normal pittances their govts let them have.

Africa does have a major problem with hetero AIDS, though, because of cultural norms. The men regularly have sex with prostitutes, and they want it "dry." Hence the prostitutes apply lime or some other drying agent to their twats. During sex, the dry tissues are far more prone to abrasion. AIDS only transmits via blood, and any opening in the skin where the virus enters is an infection route.

The men, too, are more prone to abrasions because of this, and are far more likely to contract AIDS having this kind of sex. But they do it anyway.

That "worldwide data on heterosexual transmission of AIDS" is skewed crazily because of all this. Africa has an AIDS pandemic, but nothing like what it looks like from data. And none of those conditions apply in the West. If you want something realistic you have to remove the African data and go with what's left.

[Bob_Arctor]

Hey there

Interesting points. However, even if you were to throw out Africa completely, the CDC still shows that heterosexuals in the US account for a little over a third of new infections.

This is really all I was trying to say, and it was in response to the idea that there are "no" cases of heterosexual transmission.


It's pretty interesting to see charts of the early spread of HIV in Africa. It showed that it went directly along major highways and river trade routes. Truckers and boat operators would visit prostitutes during their journeys, and it slowly spread. Then the men would bring it home to their families...


Africa does have a major problem with hetero AIDS, though, because of cultural norms. The men regularly have sex with prostitutes, and they want it "dry." Hence the prostitutes apply lime or some other drying agent to their twats. During sex, the dry tissues are far more prone to abrasion. AIDS only transmits via blood, and any opening in the skin where the virus enters is an infection route.

The men, too, are more prone to abrasions because of this, and are far more likely to contract AIDS having this kind of sex. But they do it anyway.

That "worldwide data on heterosexual transmission of AIDS" is skewed crazily because of all this. Africa has an AIDS pandemic, but nothing like what it looks like from data. And none of those conditions apply in the West. If you want something realistic you have to remove the African data and go with what's left.