Elizabeth Dole Says "Fück You" To Americans With AIDS

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Are you kidding me Liddy? You want to rename an AIDS funding bill after the late and unlamented Jesse Helms?

Originally Posted by Joe. My. God. (language NSFW)
Jesse Helms, the man who in 1987 described AIDS prevention literature as "so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1988 vigorously opposed the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS research bill, saying, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1995 said (in opposition to refunding the Ryan White Act) that the government should spend less on people with AIDS because they got sick due to their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 2002 announced that he'd changed his mind about AIDS funding for Africa, but not for American gays, because homosexuality "is the primary cause of the doubling and redoubling of AIDS cases in the United States."

Liddy, do ya think maybe, just maybe, that you could find a more appropriate bill to remember him by?

[Kevy Baby]

Well, there is a small part of me that would find this funny (if the re-naming went through). It would be like rubbing his nose in his own idiocy by naming something he would have voted against (and spent his whole life rallying against) after him.

But I still say no.

BTW: so far, I can only find one link to this story (besides the one above) and it is basically a link to the Joe.My.God story. I would really like to see more on this.

[Gemini Cricket]

Half of me says, 'Ugh!' the other half of me finds it funny.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Yeah, me too. I mean, she can't mean this any way but ironically, right?

...right?

[Moonliner]

Seeing as how I live near "Regan National Airport" this whole issue sounds like business as usual for our Marie Antoinette'ish government.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Yeah, me too. I mean, she can't mean this any way but ironically, right?

...right?

I would hope so. This is a woman who held a major position in the Red Cross, after all. And in an ironic sense, it's the ultimate f-you to Helms.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Yeah, me too. I mean, she can't mean this any way but ironically, right?

...right?

I don't know, maybe her position on "abstinence-only" prevention would be telling (which I honestly don't know).

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

I don't know, maybe her position on "abstinence-only" prevention would be telling (which I honestly don't know).

Well, I know some people who are gay-friendly but teach abstinence to kids. Hell, if I had a kid, although I'd teach them the basics of safe sex, I'd definitely encourage them to try not to have sex for as long as possible. It can make relationships very challenging. (I'm thinking of the Joss Whedon metaphor of partner-becomes-monster thing. It happens to many young people.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Well, I know some people who are gay-friendly but teach abstinence to kids. Hell, if I had a kid, although I'd teach them the basics of safe sex, I'd definitely encourage them to try not to have sex for as long as possible. It can make relationships very challenging. (I'm thinking of the Joss Whedon metaphor of partner-becomes-monster thing. It happens to many young people.)

Teaching that abstinence is a better choice is different than the "abstinence-only" crowd. The "abstinence-only" movement wants to ban any education on birth control from education, disallow it from being taught. Dangerous sh*t if you ask me (and the data, in terms of pregnancy and STD rates, from existing abstinence-only education programs combined with the proven falsehoods offered by available abstinence-only curricula rather supports my view).

I'm all for stressing that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed form of birth control/STD protection, and that it has arguably beneficial psychological benefits. But saying it's the most responsible choice is a far cry from pretending other choices don't exist and, more to the point, not properly preparing kids to deal with the realities, responsibilities, and consequences of those other choices. The only thing worse than an irresponsible young adult is an entirely uninformed irresponsible young adult.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Well, I know some people who are gay-friendly but teach abstinence to kids. Hell, if I had a kid, although I'd teach them the basics of safe sex, I'd definitely encourage them to try not to have sex for as long as possible. It can make relationships very challenging. (I'm thinking of the Joss Whedon metaphor of partner-becomes-monster thing. It happens to many young people.)

I basically agree with you because sex can have serious physical consequences. On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid emotional upset, I think more heartache would be avoided if high school kids were taught not to avoid sex but relationships that their minds, libidos, and long term plans can not rationally support.