| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Slick Willy: AIDS trumps terror | |
| 2003-11-04 | |
I d’no where this goesâ€Å
I don’t see you encouraging the ways that really work. Clinton was in Norway to seek support for a campaign against AIDS. An estimated 42 million people worldwide suffer from HIV or AIDS, most of them in Africa. Asked whether AIDS was a bigger threat to the world than terrorism, Clinton said: "Right now (AIDS) affects more people, but I wouldn’t say that. What I think is that we can’t think about one to the exclusion of the other." "Oh, I tried, but there was just enough terrorism to keep it in my mind." Clinton’s foundation has been heading work to slash the cost of AIDS treatment in African and Caribbean nations. al-Reuters | |
| Posted by:Atrus |
| #14 OP If you or your Repooplican buddies were any kind of patriots and had any kind of respect for the office of POTUS, which you and your moron friends DO NOT--you wouldn't stoop to such stupid suppositions about Clinton having AIDS--you are not worthy of American citizenship |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-11-5 12:18:11 AM |
| #13 Hmm Cyber Sarge summed up the crazy ass right wing view of this disease--but most people with AIDS in Africa happen to be heterosexual you neanderthal MORON! Thank God you live in California where opinions of your ilk are bound to be inundated by the future Mexican majority--as you bleat needlessly in a third world state |
| Posted by: Julius 2003-11-5 12:14:10 AM |
| #12 Old Patriot, What's in it for Bill is publicity(w/out press attention I think Bill would shrivel away to nothing-literaly)and refurbishing of his image.If Clinton was really concerned about Aids,when he was President he could have funded care and research out the wazoo and made several trips to Africa.He didn't.Aids is the one cause that he can look good supporting w/out generating contraversy.Any good Bill does is great,but if something else comes along Bill will jump on it. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-11-4 10:25:21 PM |
| #11 Cyber Sarge, I agree with you regarding domestic AIDS cases. I have very little sympathy, its very avoidable disease. I don't think Clinton was talking about domestic AIDs though. Bomb-a-rama, I would be upset as well if we sent troops into an African mess, but then again I was against intervention in Somalia but weeks of starving Somalia news feeds finally pushed public opinion into the 'we've got to do something' mindset. If you aknowledge that that is likely to happen early intervention (drugs, money, straightarming governments to act responsibly) that avoids the need for troops becomes very logical, and cheap in comparison. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-4 8:52:27 PM |
| #10 Wanna know what's gonna kill any long-term empathy towards AIDS sufferers? It's calling the damn treatment a Cocktail. It's not a damn cocktail.. it's a fucking mixture of lethal chemicals. It's the usual feminization of the necessary. Sorta like a Cocktail of spending increases..... a cocktail of revenue enhancements.. Damnit... A fucking pot-of-money. It's an account... an account how hard is that? It's simple! Where's my Broody Mary. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-4 7:41:26 PM |
| #9 Hmmmmm. Wonder if Bill's contracted AIDS? Either that, or someone's paying him a bundle, or he's still on that elusive quest for a 'legacy'. Clinton NEVER does anything unless there's something in it for BILL. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-4 7:20:21 PM |
| #8 "we can’t think about one to the exclusion of the other" Bullsh!t. Make a chart of all the worst AIDS-hit countries, and overlay on that the usual hotbeds of terrorism. No correlation. |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2003-11-4 6:54:25 PM |
| #7 I don't wish death by Aids on anyone. If Bill Clinton can help people, more power to him. He's going to be walking the face of this Earth for a lot of years yet. If he can make someone's life better, that's fine. As long as he leaves my life the hell alone. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-4 6:08:16 PM |
| #6 We can turn our backs on Africa for now, but I doubt we can turn our backs forever. The daily misery shows on cable news will eventually guilt the US into sending the military in anyway. Better to help now, rather than later. Nope. If GWB or whoever is prez at the time tries to intervene in Africa, I'll throw in with others (with due consideration of who's who, of course) that would object. After so much time and aid, there is no reason why Africa should still be the way it is, yet it's still a problem. That tells me that money is disappearing into a bottomless pit, and isn't worth any further efforts or expenditures, absent a fundamental change in attitudes down there. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-4 6:01:47 PM |
| #5 Hmmm, I'm thinking that if we get the fags to stop buggering each other for a while, that would stem the spread of AIDS here. The other popular method is needles of drug users. But let's remember those words of the CBS script writing team: 'Those that live in sin, shall die in sin.' And then they all went to the local bath house for a steam. Uh oh! I forgot to take my PC pills! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-4 5:32:52 PM |
| #4 Actually, Clinton's correct. He says "we can't think about one to the exclusion of the other" which is true. That's why Bush toured Africa and gave a bunch of money to fight AIDs. Lifestyle change is required, as Alaska Paul suggests which was also something Bush pushed by touting the successes in Uganda. The infection rate in parts of subsahara Africa is up to 1/4 of the adult population. What happens when 1/4 of your adults are hospitalized in a less than stable nation? Total breakdown and the Somaliafication of the region. We can turn our backs on Africa for now, but I doubt we can turn our backs forever. The daily misery shows on cable news will eventually guilt the US into sending the military in anyway. Better to help now, rather than later. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-4 5:08:29 PM |
| #3 Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said Tuesday AIDS should be considered a security issue, with the disease affecting more people in the world than terrorism. Until terrorists get their hands on an effective bio-weapon or several nukes, at which point that ratio will turn around real quick. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-4 5:06:31 PM |
| #2 Slick Willie is in the AIDS business because of publicity (and maybe honoraria). The thing that is needed to deal with AIDS is lifestyle change. Drugs will treat the symptoms, but will just create dependents on drugs to survive. Uganda's ABC program is getting results at a fraction of the cost of drugs. But, hey! if Bubba sticks to AIDS, then people can deal with the WoT without so much distraction. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-11-4 4:47:53 PM |
| #1 See? By getting knobbers rather than intercourse from Monica he was fighting security issues/the WOT. Wotta guy! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-4 4:43:08 PM |