so...Mike Huckabee.

[BVS]

And? Tell me if I'm wrong Irvine (or anyone else), but we still don't know all there is to know about AIDS, right? We still don't have a cure for AIDS, right? 15+ years later.

Again, I don't think this was a move to isolate all gay people and remove them from society. I really don't. Hopefully none of you do. I don't know the history of AIDS or the "timeline" of what was known about it. I probably wouldn't have said what Huckabee said, but I'm certainly not going to hold it against him. Apparently I'm alone in that here.

You don't sound very educated on the history of AIDS or even how it spreads, and it's 2007.

The rest of educated society had a pretty good grasp on how it spread in 1992, and we definately do now(at least most of us),no we don't have a cure, but we know you can't get it from a sneeze.

And I'm sure why you keep bringing up the "isolate all gay people", you do know that AIDS isn't a gay disease and that not all gay people have AIDS, please tell me you at least know this.

You and Huck need to do some research.

 

[2861U2]

You don't sound very educated on the history of AIDS or even how it spreads, and it's 2007.

Maybe I'm not. But I'm not claiming to be. All I'm saying is I'm giving Huckabee the benefit of the doubt.

And I'm sure why you keep bringing up the "isolate all gay people", you do know that AIDS isn't a gay disease and that not all gay people have AIDS, please tell me you at least know this.

Yes, I'm fully aware you can't get AIDS from a sneeze or a handshake and yes, I'm fully aware not all gay people have AIDS and not all AIDS victims are gay. The reason I mentioned gay people specifically was because I get the impression that some people in here are turning this into a "gay" issue, not a "potentially deadly disease" issue.

 

[Irvine511]

The reason I mentioned gay people specifically was because I get the impression that some people in here are turning this into a "gay" issue, not a "potentially deadly disease" issue.

and this is what's really interesting.

AIDS is quite obviously not a gay disease in a worldwide context, and though it was in the beginning in the US and Europe, now straight people make up the majority of new HIV infections, and the most at-risk group are straight african-americans.

however, in 1992, it was seen as a "gay disease," and it was a wonderfully effective way for the socially conservative right to view AIDS as some sort of punishment for a "sinful" lifestyle. there was a horrible t-shirt that was popular in some corners that read: "AIDS is killing the right people." i remember Sebastian Bach getting in trouble for wearing a t-shirt that read "AIDS Kills Fags Dead."

so while AIDS has never been solely a gay disease, it has disproportionately affected the gay community (for a long, long list of reasons, many of which are quite complex), and it has thusly been used as "evidence" that there's something wrong with being gay. further, it becomes quite easy to point at a despised segment of the population and call for "isolation" when (you don't think) it's going to be anyone who'd either, a) vote for you, or b) you don't regard as totally human.

like i said, if it were soccer moms getting HIV, you'd never, ever have a senate candidate from AR calling for "isolation."

these days, people are saying that there was too much "P.C." surrounding the early years of the AIDS crisis, and had there been quarantining of some sort in the very early 80s, perhaps the spread could have been stopped. that's something we'll never know. but it's hard not to backlash when you're already a highly discriminated against (especially back then) minority group. how do you not read more into this than what might already be there? but ultimately, it's the dormant stage of the virus that makes it so potent. you don't get sick right away. most people will come down with something akin to a flu right after seroconversion, but people can have HIV and not know it for years and years, and this makes it so easy to spread, and this is why in addition to the spread of safer sex practices i think HIV testing should be part of a routine doctor's visit. once people know they have the virus, most people are very responsible for their health and for the health of others, and once someone is on medications, their ability to infect others is greatly reduced.

 

[2861U2]

however, in 1992, it was seen as a "gay disease," and it was a wonderfully effective way for the socially conservative right to view AIDS as some sort of punishment for a "sinful" lifestyle.

Well I certainly don't condone that at all, and anyone who thinks that way doesn't speak for me. I'm sorry, I just don't think that was Huckabee's objective, though.

Thanks for the post, Irvine. It was interesting.

 

[BVS]

Maybe I'm not. But I'm not claiming to be. All I'm saying is I'm giving Huckabee the benefit of the doubt.

What benefit of the doubt are you giving him? He made the comment in 92 and then he stood by that statement in 2007. In 2007 he thinks it was a good idea to isolate AIDS victims. This ignorance isn't presidential material.

 

[deep]

are some of us badgering the witness?

 

[2861U2]

What benefit of the doubt are you giving him? He made the comment in 92 and then he stood by that statement in 2007. In 2007 he thinks it was a good idea to isolate AIDS victims. This ignorance isn't presidential material.

He isn't necessarily "standing by" his statement. Have you listened to what he said? He's stated he would have said it differently. He doesn't currently think AIDS victims should be isolated, and he isn't denying he ever said it, which is what many politicians do regarding stupid and/or controversial statements. What else do you want?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I believe Irvine is correct, that's how it was in 1992. That's certainly how I remember it. AIDS will probably always be a "gay issue" merely because of the fact that some people used it to discriminate against gay people and some still do. For that reason it can never be just a health issue. Of course other people who have it who are not gay can also be discriminated against. Huckabee is accountable for his seeming refusal to refute what he said, why won't he just admit that it was morally wrong and not based in reality? What people thought back then and public ignorance/lack of information back then is no excuse for what he is saying and doing in 2007.


The Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's 15-year-old comments that AIDS patients should have been isolated have so alarmed the mother of Ryan White, an Indiana teenager whose life-ending battle with AIDS in the 1980s engrossed the nation, that she has asked for a meeting.

"I would be very willing to meet with them," the former Arkansas governor responded Tuesday while campaigning in western Iowa. "I would tell them we've come a long way in research, in treatment."

The GOP front-runner in Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses stood by his 1992 comments in a broadcast interview Sunday, infuriating Jeanne White-Ginder, the late teen's mother and a board member of the AIDS Institute.

"It's so alarming to me," she said in a telephone interview Monday with The Associated Press from her home in Leesburg, Fla.

"It's very important to me that we don't live in the darkness" when people thought AIDS was transmitted through casual contact, such as by "kissing, tears, sweat and saliva," White-Ginder said. "We have to treat this disease like a disease, and like Ryan always said, not like a dirty word."

White was 13 when he was diagnosed with AIDS in December 1984, having contracted the disease from the blood-clotting agent used to treat his hemophilia. He was barred from school the following year out of fear the disease was spread casually. He died in 1990 at age 18.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, and the AIDS Institute sent a letter to Huckabee asking him to meet with White-Ginder who declined in the interview to say what political party she belongs to and calling his comments "completely beyond comprehension."

In response, Huckabee told reporters in Council Bluffs, Iowa: "I certainly never would want to say anything that would be hurtful to them or anyone else. I would have great regret and anxiety if I thought my comments were hurtful or in any way added to the already incredible pain that families have felt regardless of how they contracted AIDS."

Once an underdog, the candidate has come under increased scrutiny as he has soared to the front-running position in the important Iowa caucuses and elsewhere over the past few weeks. He's faced criticism, in particular, for his comments on AIDS, and his records on parole, taxes and immigration in his decade as governor, and those issues were all but certain to be raised at a GOP debate in Iowa on Wednesday.

He said he expected more criticism to come.

"That's part of the way we unfortunately do politics in America," Huckabee said. "When you're a governor for ten and half years you make thousands of decisions every year. In office that long, you're going to have a lot of decisions people can pore through."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

He isn't necessarily "standing by" his statement. Have you listened to what he said? He's stated he would have said it differently. He doesn't currently think AIDS victims should be isolated, and he isn't denying he ever said it, which is what many politicians do regarding stupid and/or controversial statements. What else do you want?

This is what he said. How is that not standing by it? He would state it differently-that's a vague and open ended statement.

'I still believe this today,'' he said in a broadcast interview, that ''we were acting more out of political correctness'' in responding to the AIDS crisis. ''I don't run from it, I don't recant it,'' he said of his position in 1992. Yet he said he would state his view differently in retrospect.

 

[BVS]

He isn't necessarily "standing by" his statement. Have you listened to what he said? He's stated he would have said it differently. He doesn't currently think AIDS victims should be isolated, and he isn't denying he ever said it, which is what many politicians do regarding stupid and/or controversial statements. What else do you want?

What else do I want? For him to say, "I was ignorant, I'm sorry."

But he said this instead:

''I still believe this today,'' he said in a broadcast interview, that ''we were acting more out of political correctness'' in responding to the AIDS crisis. ''I don't run from it, I don't recant it,'' he said of his position in 1992. Yet he said he would state his view differently in retrospect.

"I still believe this today" that's not standing by his statement?

Wording it different wouldn't have made any difference in the world.

 

[deep]

he isn't denying he ever said it, which is what many politicians do regarding stupid and/or controversial statements.

this is true

and he does deserve credit for not flip / flopping about his 1992 remarks

he also was speaking during an Arkansas campaign and those remarks were not out of step with that constituency

2861u2, I realize you were probably 3-4 years old in 1992

I was 37, and those beliefs were not universally believed by well informed people at the time

but, in Arkansas?
it probably went over just fine.

 

[Irvine511]

He isn't necessarily "standing by" his statement. Have you listened to what he said? He's stated he would have said it differently. He doesn't currently think AIDS victims should be isolated, and he isn't denying he ever said it, which is what many politicians do regarding stupid and/or controversial statements. What else do you want?

i want him to say something nice and compassionate about people who contracted the disease, even it if it was through homosexual sex, and i want him to say that if he were president he'd repeal the ban against HIV positive immigrants getting citizenship and i want him to recount his previous offensive comments about gay people ("sinful lifestyle") and actually become the compassionate Christian he says he is and join the rest of the civilized world.

 

[deep]

i want him to say something nice and compassionate about people who contracted the disease, even it if it was through homosexual sex, and i want him to say that if he were president he'd repeal the ban against HIV positive immigrants getting citizenship and i want him to recount his previous offensive comments about gay people ("sinful lifestyle") and actually become the compassionate Christian he says he is and join the rest of the civilized world.

Irvine

I believe everything you wrote is what any rational and fair person should believe and state.


But. I don't believe any of the GOP candidates would make that blanket statement. Not even Rudy, in this GOP primary campaign.



I believe that Huck has a chance (small) of getting the GOP nomination.

I also believe he would be very easy to beat in Nov 2008.

 

[Irvine511]

I believe that Huck has a chance (small) of getting the GOP nomination.

I also believe he would be very easy to beat in Nov 2008.

the Democrats are already calling him an "easy kill."



but then again, they've never gone up against someone who Jesus has personally endorsed before.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Irvine

I believe everything you wrote is what any rational and fair person should believe and state.


But. I don't believe any of the GOP candidates would make that blanket statement. Not even Rudy, in this GOP primary campaign.



I believe that Huck has a chance (small) of getting the GOP nomination.

I also believe he would be very easy to beat in Nov 2008.

Hell would freeze over if any of them said anything even remotely close to that.

And Irvine, one of the Dems have Oprah on their side. And we all know Oprah is bigger than Jesus.

 

[deep]

the Democrats are already calling him an "easy kill."



but then again, they've never gone up against someone who Jesus has personally endorsed before.

really??


how do you think the miracle in 2000 happened?

one loses an election
but gains the office?

 

[deep]

Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church.

However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Nutty fundamentalist? Believe it or not, many people like a candidate who is open about his faith.

I don't think verte meant that nobody wants a president who's open about their faith. Keep in mind, she is Catholic. She's talked about her own faith many times in here, so I highly doubt she has a problem with a presidential candidate being open about theirs. Nobody here has a problem with somebody being religious and being open about their religion.

But when you hear things like that bit deep just posted, and when Bush, or any other politician can't seem to separate their personal religious beliefs from their policy making, yeah, there's a problem.

Case in point, Huckabee's rising numbers and the two victories by W.

Bush may have won both times based on that, but his popularity is quite low now. And this recent hoopla with Huckabee's statements may hurt him a bit.

I just want to know exactly how Huckabee would've worded his statement differently? Would he have changed it to make it sound better and not so ignorant, or would he have used different words, only to have the message remain the same?

Angela

 

[phillyfan26]

EVERYONE IS FINE WITH PEOPLE HAVING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND BEING OPEN ABOUT THEM.

There.

 

[martha]

All I'm saying is I'm giving Huckabee the benefit of the doubt.

This may turn out to be huge mistake on your part.

 

[Irvine511]

Huckabee has quite an opportunity here to denounce what he has said in the past and embrace all of God's children. go for it, Huck! repent!

[q] Huckabee's 1992 words get new attention

By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The U.S. shouldn't try to kill Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Mike Huckabee declared when he first ran for office. No women in combat anywhere. No gays in the military. No contributions in politics to candidates more than a year before an election.

His statements are among 229 answers Huckabee offered as a 36-year-old Texarkana pastor during his first run for political office in 1992. In that unsuccessful race against Sen. Dale Bumpers, Huckabee offered himself as a social conservative and listed "moral decay" as one of the top problems facing the country.

Now that he's a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, he's being asked anew about some of the views and comments he expressed in the survey by The Associated Press. Over the weekend, he said he wouldn't retract answers in which he advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased funding for finding a cure and said homosexuality could pose a public health risk — though he said today he might phrase his answers "a little differently."

Some of the words in his answers to the questionnaire are indeed strong.

Asked about gays in the military, for example, he didn't just reject the idea but added: "I believe to try to legitimize that which is inherently illegitimate would be a disgraceful act of government. I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

Earlier this year, Huckabee said, "Nobody's going to find some YouTube moments of me saying something radically different than what I'm saying today."

The full questionnaire offers in written form a chance for voters to see what he was saying as he bagan his political career.

In the questionnaire, he:

• Called for the elimination of political action committees and campaign contributions from lobbyists. He also said candidates should not be allowed to receive contributions until one year before an election and said there should be limits on the amount of out-of-state money they could accept.

As Arkansas governor, Huckabee formed a political action committee based in Virginia to raise money for non-federal candidates that allowed him to travel and raise his profile for a potential presidential run. The Hope for America PAC shut down earlier this year as Huckabee entered the White House race.

• Said he would not support any tax increases if elected to the Senate. Huckabee's record of raising some taxes as Arkansas' governor has drawn fire from fiscal conservatives in the presidential race.

• When asked whether the U.S. should take any action to kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Huckabee replied: "The U.S. should not kill Saddam Hussein or anyone else." The U.S. military captured Saddam, an Iraqi court convicted him and he was hanged last December.

• Rejected the idea of women in combat "because of my strong traditional view that women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat."

• Said living together out of wedlock "is demeaning to the highest expression of human love and commitment. I reject it as an alternate lifestyle, because it robs people of the highest possible relationship one can experience: marriage."

• Said he believed no one has a constitutional right to an abortion and supported requiring minors to obtain parental consent. Huckabee also said he supported requiring doctors to discuss abortion alternatives and a waiting period.

[/q]

 

[BVS]

What a discusting individual...

 

[Irvine511]

What a discusting individual...

Tony Perkins can't stand your bigotry towards Christians:

[q]This morning, for example, the lead story on Drudge was a 1998 article from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporting on a speech that Huckabee gave at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptists calling on the church to wake up following a rash of school shootings. The Drudge headline touted, "Take this nation back for Christ," a subtle but clear warning to secular elites. Columnist Richard Cohen wasn't as subtle last week when he said Huckabee is climbing in the polls because of "his obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs."

There is clearly a reverse religious standard being applied to Mike Huckabee, a standard that says there will be no defining religious beliefs. I would hope the other candidates, including the Democrats, would clearly and absolutely denounce this reverse religious test and keep the media from going further down this path. If not, I predict that bible-believing Christians will step over policy differences they have with Mike Huckabee to stand by and support a candidate who is being attacked because he believes, as they do, that their Christian faith should actually impact the way they live. If that happens, the recent meteoric rise of the Huckabee campaign in the polls could look minuscule compared to the tsunami of support that he will get from Christians who are tired of the elites who belittle their beliefs and attempt to rob them of every public reflection of their faith.

http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WA07L03#WA07L03

[/q]

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

• Rejected the idea of women in combat "because of my strong traditional view that women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat."

Soooooooo...logic would dictate that we punish those who commit said abuses and let women who are perfectly capable of serving their country do so, right? Women can serve in the military and still be treated with respect and dignity-hell, they BETTER be. Everyone in the military should be treated the same, no matter who they are. One would think that'd be kind of a "Duh!".

• Said living together out of wedlock "is demeaning to the highest expression of human love and commitment. I reject it as an alternate lifestyle, because it robs people of the highest possible relationship one can experience: marriage."

Here's a thought, Huckabee-whether or not two people live together before or after they're married is none of your damn business.

And as for the homosexuality thing...all I have to say to that is this: .

Yeah, this is somebody I really want in the White House next year .

Angela

 

[phillyfan26]

I laugh at anyone who votes for this ass.

After more of his thoughts have come out ... I tend to agree with this.

 

[Irvine511]

Here's a thought, Huckabee-whether or not two people live together before or after they're married is none of your damn business.

and here's the thing.

Huckabee wants to make it the business of the government to encourage, or discourage, you to live together with someone before you get married. Huck, and even GWB, probably Romney, and certainly someone like Santorum, say that we all have an interest in how you live. the would say that marriage benefits everyone, therefore, the government has an interest in encouraging you to get married. they would say that divorce harms everyone, therefore they would offer incentives to discourage you from divorcing. they might say that certain sex acts are better than others, so they're going to encourage missionary style rather than woman-on-top.

but it's all okay, see, because we shouldn't remove religion and common moral values from the public arena. it is in our interests to know who you sleep with, and how, and why, and what we as a society can do to help encourage you to make better choices so that how, where, and with whom you have sex falls in line with our shared values. it is the government's job to peer into bedrooms. we have no right to privacy.

for this is Theo-Democracy. and how dare anyone try to use someone's religion against them and prevent them from it's free expression. for if the free expression of my religion is to clear my world of gay people, and further to stop any anal sex having anywhere, then to impede me from impeding you is to violate my Constitutional rights.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Tooooooooo true, Irvine. Never mind the fact that many of the people that are so deadset on regulating that sort of thing have their own skeletons in their closet, and have probably done things that have gone against their religion (all you have to do is look at the recent sex scandals in the press-it happens)...but if we called them out on it they'd plead for privacy and tell us to leave them alone. So we have to mind our own business in regards to them, but they can have free reign on everyone else?

And it's ironic that they're so deadset against divorce, too-so, they'd rather people who are deeply unhappy with each other be forced to live together, leading to more resent, bitterness, and sometimes possibly even violent actions instead of break up and move on to find happier lives with others? How does that do anything for the "sanctity of marriage"?

The bottom line is this: so long as premarital sex and living together before marriage and things of that nature are between consenting adults, it is absolutely NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Neither is homosexuality. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever, they're just as capable of love and commitment as anyone else, they're just like everybody else in every way except that who they love is different. That is not a crime. And it is none of your concern. So worry about your own lives and leave theirs alone, 'kay?

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

[So worry about your own lives and leave theirs alone, 'kay?
[/B]

they're not concerned with your life.

they're concerned with your soul.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

they're not concerned with your life.

they're concerned with your soul.

They can stop worrying about that, too. My soul is just fine.

Angela

 

[martha]

Why is the word "sinful" even entering into discussion of governmental powers????????

What the fuck has happened to our country where this is tolerated???