POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: Jeffreyj on August 15, 2006, 10:27:21 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/15/aids.clinton.reut/index.html
I am a huge Clinton supporter, but I must say I am baffled by this story, and his backing of the Bush Administration. In the same story, he (Thankfully) goes on to say that abstinence doesn't work. I don't know what's going on here, but I must say that it is disappointing to me that Mr. Clinton chose to use his clout to back Bush. I just don't get this. Any thoughts you have I would love to hear them!
Thanks, Jeff
-
Hello Jeff, I find it intersting that Bill Clinton has decided to use his clout in such a manner backing the Bush Administration.
-
I think Clinton simply stated the truth. That program on the whole is good and needs to go forward. You've got the religous right bs intertwined in it which is annoying, but much better than nothing. What is important is getting the drugs to those who need it. I think this is what Clinton sees.
I'm hardly a Bush supporter. This really says nothing about how he's handled the situation at home.
brian
-
Good God, I lost respect for my favorite politician (can the words "respect" and "politician" even stay on the same line of type?) when I read the transcript of Clinton's remarks.
Abstinence-only policies are working? LOVE to see the data on that.
Circumcision instead of condoms? Sure, because developing countries with poor sanitation and minimal healthcare sure could handle an unnecessary surgical procedure without complications on a wide scale.
Am I the only one who realized that the circumcision issue would be rendered moot if condoms were used? And that spending money and resources to circumcise a population in a developing country (often in complete opposition to religious beliefs, i.e. Hindus) not only dwarfs the amount needed to advocate condoms and preventative gel, but does NOT significantly the risk for HIV transmission to the female from the male. When do girls get to live?
I agree with him that getting HIV treatment to developing countries should be a priority. But not ever, ever at the expense (or the sacrifice) of science-based prevention methods specifically targeted to the cultural and developmental needs of a nation and it's people.
If he was trying to get countries to accept the strings-attached aid from the US and UN, and giving a wink to those in the know who intend to find ways around the restrictions, well... I sure didn't see that wink.
Very disappointed.
-
You guys don't get it. Willy will change his story before the week is out, he always has. I cant remember a time when he hasn't stood on each side of an issue. It all depends on the crowd who is paying him to speak or whose votes he is trying to a get and sometimes he just forgets what he is talking about he is so busy listening to his own wonderful voice.
I'll never forget when he spoke in Houston in the 90s right after he raised taxes. He told the audience he had gone way too far and it was a mistake. The next day he said it was "lack of sleep" or a misunderstanding and by the end of the month his story was he had never said it.
I know other people like Willy. They cant help themselves and often lie even when the truth isn't too bad. Bill is a hypnotic speaker, but if you listen closely the content of what he is saying often makes absolutely no sense, his voice and manner of speaking is second to none. He is a master of bullshit.
I think he may be trying an end around for Hillary. There is much discontent in the Republican party over the lack of spending control and conservatism by the big government,spend as much as you can Bush government. If they can just get a couple percentage points from the Reps, they can win. If they can soften Hills image and make her appear a moderate and not the radical leftist that everyone on my side remembers from the 90s they may keep the republican base at home. As it stands now a Hillary candidacy is one the few ways the reps win in 2008, because Hill is such a polarizing figure. If Will can work his magic on the unsuspecting the same way he did in the 90s maybe, just maybe.
-
I seen this live interview and what he was saying is that the Bush policy may not be that great, in that a huge chunk of aids money is going to abstinence-only programs, still there is a huge amount also getting to people and research that need it. Like a trade off, in doing business with the Bush admin, its worth the trade off to get so much going to the right places despite abstinence-only programs.
One interesting thing, not mentioned but true, is abstinence-only programs don’t work. But no one in the admin or congress is willing to allow this to be looked into. They will not allow any hearings to see in abstinence-only programs work...period. And that is because, if they allowed abstinence-only programs to be looked into, they would find they are NOT worth the $$.
Many congress and senators (on both sides) are already realizing abstinence-only programs don’t work and are not happy with pumping more and more $ into them. So lets just hope their cries will be heard and those worthless abstinence-only programs, pushed by the far right in some fantasy world, will be finally stopped and all the money will go directly to the needs.
Give old Bill a break. He has gotten more attention going to hiv than anyone else, even during his own admin. Lets just be thankful for the huge funding they have allowed (with their little far right agenda added for the go-ahead). Otherwise, it would be too easy for bush admin to just blow this off and ignore it, like Reagan did.
-
yeah, you are right, abstinence doesn't work. Wait a minute, I have abstained since discovering I was HIV+ in 1989 and I am positive, 100freaking percent positive, I haven't passed it on. Oh,you mean it doesn't work as government program? What government programs do work or are worth the money? Geez,there are none are there? Name me one government program that doesn't have waste or is not inefficient in some way?
Finally a social program that libs don't like,because it puts the emphasis on personal responsibility and people are incapable of being responsible without the government.
You can air drop rubbers all over the world, I don't care, but don't put the blame for hiv in the world on any politicians till it can be proved beyond a doubt that one of them created this shit.
-
Jack, please dont make me start quoting The Gospel According To George. I can find the lies, inconsistencies, half truths and plain old ignorance in PLENTY of what HE has to say. This administration has and will continue to attempt to control this country through fear.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2314440&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2314440&page=1)
I think this is more what my boy Bill is saying. What Bush IS doing is better than NOTHING.
"It needs doing, and it's both the right thing to do in terms of our national self-interest and on a purely personal moral basis," Clinton said.
Doubt you will ever here Dr. Evil (thats Bush) speak those words.
Clinton, who will turn 60 on Saturday, praised President Bush's program to fight AIDS, though he acknowledged some concerns about the administration's requirements.
Almost a third of the prevention funding goes to abstinence and related programs, which Clinton said were often not effective.
"The fact that they require 30 percent of the money to be spent on abstinence education — that is a big chunk of money when you consider how expensive the medicine and other things are," Clinton said.
Again, I do NOT call this support. I see it as a political back hand. They can't come right out and say, YOU SUCK!
All in all, I would much rather have Billy back! I miss him.
-
ACinKC...According to that article, one-third of the funding goes to abstinence. Oh My God, what a TOTAL WAISTE OF MONEY!
Jack, I must say I think you are "right on" with Bill trying to make and "end around" for Hillary. That has to be part of all this Bush licking. It's the only thing that makes sense. Clinton is allot of things, but stupid is not one of them. He's up to something.
-
I totally agree Jeff. WASTE OF RESOURCES! I think in a round about way, Bill was saying the same thing.
-
Does this mean we should stop all government programs that don't work? That would be cool. This is the first government program I have ever heard anyone on this MB be against.
Let make a deal. I say lets cancel the abstinence thing in return for cutting all other government programs that don't work.
How could Clinton ever come out in favor of abstinence? The guy tries to fuck every woman he meets(most decline) and he cheats at golf.
Never trust anyone who cheats at golf.
-
I think Clinton just did what a lot of politicians do well... weave a long yarn to say a few words... namely:
- "We REALLY appreciate that this administration stepped forward and pledged $15B to fight AIDS in foreign countries."
- "However, we are in disagreement with the priorities concerning how this money is spent."
You wouldn't want him to scream so loud at Bush about how the money was spent to cause Bush to stop funding the program... or reallocate it to another cause where he won't get so much flack about how it's spent. Also, he may want to hedge his bets and be diplomatic just in case we end up with another Republican in 2008.
Being the cynic I am, I have my own theories why Bush put up the $15B... and it's not altruism.
Give Clinton credit... he's a smart man... just has a weakness many of us share: he's sexually compulsive.
-
... Finally a social program that libs don't like,because it puts the emphasis on personal responsibility and people are incapable of being responsible without the government.
Oh, Lordy, Lordy. Isn't using a condom an issue of personal responsibility? Preaching abstinence to hormonally driven adolescents is about as much a deterrent as passing out Tic Tacs to tobacco addicts. It's a matter of spending limited resources wisely and "abstinence only" just doesn't work.
Boo
-
Stopping all gov programs that do not work is a great idea. So let congress do a serious investigation into abstinence programs and see if they are worth the $$$. But they will not even look into it. They just keep pouring more and more $$$$ into them. And what studies are finding, is that these programs (also aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies) just don’t work. So teens actually have the same amount of sex but more types of sex that is far more dangerous in spreading hiv. They think signing an abstinence pledge means just not doing the old nasty that makes babies. So they figure ways around that with other types of sex (if you know what I mean), and still totally believe that are keeping with their abstinence pledge.
Like I said above, many many State officials on both sides are realizing that and are already cutting state funded abstinence programs.
Its really a no brainer. Humans and especially young teens are very sexual in nature and the mind plays second place to the sex drive. You can not defuse that (if you're a human, and especially a teen) with a TV ad, magazine ad or pamphlet.
-
I hate telling people what to do, but I think this may be an idea many of us may want to consider.
I strongly urge everyone who lives in the USA who believes that abstinence Is a waist of money time and effort, to write their senor state senator and voice your opinion. It is an election year and who knows? It can't hurt. Thank you kindly. Jeff(It beats doing nothing, after all.) Thank you...Jeff
-
Mitch, I have to disagree. I mean I have been sexually compulsive most of my life,but I never,ever had sex with anyone at work or in my office,even though I had the opportunity. I used my better judgement to overcome my sexual compulsion at work and in my office. Never had sex with any women who worked for me. Its something you just don't do,it destroys the workplace and in most instances could cost you your job. Now I did work with losers who screwed in stairwells,afterhours, and with whoever they could. I found these people to be poor employees and not to be trusted.
Waskally Willy used the White House as his own personal whore house. I don't think most of here would do that. I also don't think most of us here would trash the legal contract with our marriage partner for a head set from a fat intern. I think most here have more respect for their partner and for the White House than Willy had in his frequent attempts to get laid while president.
I still don't understand why so many here are against wasting money on abstinence programs. There are literally thousands of other programs that don't work, that cost more that no one here has ever said anything about. Why this one? Whats wrong with people not having sex or trying to keep them from having sex? That's the defense often used for other government programs, its not the results its the goodness of the intent.
-
In order to keep people from having sex, simply remove the sexual organs from those who commit sex crimes... devices could be made that prevent masturbation as well. If all else fails, simply confining offenders in small metal cages works wonderfully.