Funny events in anti-woke world

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,373
920
118
Country
USA
But expecting people to do so? Expecting it of millions upon millions of people? That's unrealistic, yes, to a ludicrous extreme. And as public health policy its just a non-starter.
I wonder how you compare this to gun laws. Obviously we can never expect people to totally stop killing each other, does that mean we ought to just accept it, and not recommend people do otherwise? Do we blame every shooting on those who suggest gun control? Do you think the government should be putting significant resources into figuring out how to get more people to survive being shot rather than working towards stopping the shootings?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,805
5,730
118
Country
United Kingdom
I wonder how you compare this to gun laws. Obviously we can never expect people to totally stop killing each other, does that mean we ought to just accept it, and not recommend people do otherwise?
Nope! And nobody is suggesting we "just accept" the harm done by STI transmission, either. I find it a bit odd that you're asking me this, though, when my position has been that the authorities should have worked to prevent it, and your position seems to have been that they needn't bother.

Do we blame every shooting on those who suggest gun control?
We hold responsible A) the shooter.... when their action was either intentional or the bad outcome was reasonably foreseeable (circumstances which do not apply to people having sex who do not have access to reliable information about AIDS); and B) the authorities, when the authorities have overseen policies that have increased the harm.

Do you think the government should be putting significant resources into figuring out how to get more people to survive being shot rather than working towards stopping the shootings?
It's not either/or. But yes, I believe the government should be putting resources into ensuring victims of shootings have better survival rates. That's called healthcare.

This is a bit of a weird question in terms of the analogy, unless you're seriously suggesting that we shouldn't put resources into researching the treatment and cure of diseases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,373
920
118
Country
USA
It's not either/or.
That's my point. You not only believe that sexual discipline is unreasonable and unrealistic, you go so far as to blame that perspective for making things worse. Should a Catholic say "hey, condoms aren't 100% effective, distributing them around the world and calling it a solution could even make things worse by giving a false sense of security and encouraging risky behaviors", you see that as "misinformation" that disallows people from making informed decisions. You've got a very singular perspective on this, you do not have an either/or mentality in the slightest.

And then you've got conspiracy theories about multiple world governments, and Ronald Raegan personally, trying to suppress information. But the CDC is in the US Executive Branch, in the 1980's they effectively worked under Reagan, they had a taskforce going within a week of the first mystery cases and as best as I can tell coined the term AIDS. Once it was discovered that HIV was the cause, the NIH began aggressively looking for drugs that could suppress the virus. The US Public Health Service had a hotline set up taking thousands of calls a day. All of this was done by the US Federal Government in the time period you believe they were suppressing information and spreading disinformation.

And as far as I can tell, your basis for all of this is effectively summed as "social conservatism must always be the bad guy".
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,805
5,730
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's my point. You not only believe that sexual discipline is unreasonable and unrealistic, you go so far as to blame that perspective for making things worse.
Firstly, stop right there: it's not "sexual discipline" I'm finding unrealistic. It's expecting abstinence outside (the Catholic definition of) marriage.

And yes, when that perspective drives people to lie about viral transmission and suppress access to prophylactics, as the Catholic Church did, it does make things worse.

Should a Catholic say "hey, condoms aren't 100% effective, distributing them around the world and calling it a solution could even make things worse by giving a false sense of security and encouraging risky behaviors", you see that as "misinformation" that disallows people from making informed decisions. You've got a very singular perspective on this, you do not have an either/or mentality in the slightest.
Of course, the Catholic Church did not take that position. They outright lied about the effects of condoms and suppressed access to them.

And then you've got conspiracy theories about multiple world governments, and Ronald Raegan personally, trying to suppress information. But the CDC is in the US Executive Branch, in the 1980's they effectively worked under Reagan, they had a taskforce going within a week of the first mystery cases and as best as I can tell coined the term AIDS. Once it was discovered that HIV was the cause, the NIH began aggressively looking for drugs that could suppress the virus. The US Public Health Service had a hotline set up taking thousands of calls a day. All of this was done by the US Federal Government in the time period you believe they were suppressing information and spreading disinformation.
You know as well as I do that the CDC acts with enormous independence from the White House. Reagan's own team shut down reporters' questions, and drastically cut the funding research. That's what they were directly responsible for.

And there's no "conspiracy theory" necessary. Figures in governments guide/change messaging all the time. Thatcher chose to prevent ministers from launching public health messaging campaigns. That's not a theory-- it's on the record, attested by former ministers themselves and by Freedom of Information requests.

And as far as I can tell, your basis for all of this is effectively summed as "social conservatism must always be the bad guy".
That'll be because you haven't engaged with any of the specifics I've brought up: the cut research funding, the nixxed public awareness campaigns in the UK, the outright lies from the Vatican.

You're only dismissing and ignoring any of this because it makes a party and religious institution you identify with look bad-- and you'd rather stereotype and moralise about the victims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
Gained a passing fetish for watching police have to dilly dance around their bodycams when catching one of their own doing the crimes. The consistent kid gloves and politeness from arresting officers is what it is cause of course it is.

"It's not like the old days." 🤫


Was posted a while back in article form, but the source recording is worth hearing for understanding the particular brand of disdain and inhumanity these heads of police unions casually behave with, as well as the panicked turning off of the bodycam after he remembered his rookie mistake.


Though to be fair, and balanced (and able to walk in a straight line am definitely not drunk, officer!) Sovereign citizens being put in their place are also fun to watch. See, future police of the fascist state of Britain? Its on the record here and now am officially not anti-cop, just a boring old centrist me! Nothing further to investigate. 🫡

(Don't worry, he's unharmed, he's white obvs, lol)
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,295
11,051
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Gained a passing fetish for watching police have to dilly dance around their bodycams when catching one of their own doing the crimes. The consistent kid gloves and politeness from arresting officers is what it is cause of course it is.

"It's not like the old days." 🤫


Was posted a while back in article form, but the source recording is worth hearing for understanding the particular brand of disdain and inhumanity these heads of police unions casually behave with, as well as the panicked turning off of the bodycam after he remembered his rookie mistake.


Though to be fair, and balanced (and able to walk in a straight line am definitely not drunk, officer!) Sovereign citizens being put in their place are also fun to watch. See, future police of the fascist state of Britain? Its on the record here and now am officially not anti-cop, just a boring old centrist me! Nothing further to investigate. 🫡

(Don't worry, he's unharmed, he's white obvs, lol)
Did you see this video by any chance? I posted it a few weeks ago. This guy is in big trouble. And in the investigations don't end there.

 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
Did you see this video by any chance? I posted it a few weeks ago. This guy is in big trouble. And in the investigations don't end there.

All dogs may go to heaven, but all hogs with criminal pasts go to Coffee City, Texas. 🧐 (There's no way the mayor wasn't aware, especially with their police force being like a 5th of the population too. Can't take him at his word, unfortunately)


-

JP going through his "emperor's clothes" stage still


This guy also just started a "Tate university" scam recently with his daughter, if anyone wasn't aware. He ain't getting off that gravy train any time soon it appears. Is real bad stuff too, promotional video bafflingly worse still: And I mean in basic efforts to present sincerity - quality of grift, not the obvious angle of political diffences. Not sure who they think they're fooling, the most desperately vulnerable of their audience at best?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak and BrawlMan

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,939
1,398
118
Country
The Netherlands
Kevin McCarthy is the funny event in anti woke world. Traded his soul to the Maga freaks only to be subjugated by them, and eventually impeached by them when he finally resisted. What a clown.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,077
3,229
118
Gained a passing fetish for watching police have to dilly dance around their bodycams when catching one of their own doing the crimes. The consistent kid gloves and politeness from arresting officers is what it is cause of course it is.

"It's not like the old days." 🤫


Was posted a while back in article form, but the source recording is worth hearing for understanding the particular brand of disdain and inhumanity these heads of police unions casually behave with, as well as the panicked turning off of the bodycam after he remembered his rookie mistake.


Though to be fair, and balanced (and able to walk in a straight line am definitely not drunk, officer!) Sovereign citizens being put in their place are also fun to watch. See, future police of the fascist state of Britain? Its on the record here and now am officially not anti-cop, just a boring old centrist me! Nothing further to investigate. 🫡

(Don't worry, he's unharmed, he's white obvs, lol)
Sovcits are where you put a tarp over your ACAB signs and just nod.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,221
8,676
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Kevin McCarthy is the funny event in anti woke world. Traded his soul to the Maga freaks only to be subjugated by them, and eventually impeached by them when he finally resisted. What a clown.
McCarthy wanted that position so badly (let's not forget that there were reports he was having staffers refer to him as "Mr. Speaker" well before those twenty-plus votes he needed) that he willingly sold himself out to the crazies in order to get it. He had to have known that he was going to get voted out the instant he failed on his agreement to help them burn the country down so that only the MAGAts could get to play in the ashes- because if he didn't know that, he is a world-class imbecile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,358
2,018
118
Kevin McCarthy is the funny event in anti woke world. Traded his soul to the Maga freaks only to be subjugated by them, and eventually impeached by them when he finally resisted. What a clown.
Any Republican House leader currently has two options: either forge an alliance with the Democrats or forge and alliance with MAGA. In the defence of McCarthy, at least MAGA is the same party.

Small majority + large rebel contigent = paralysis. See also the post-Brexit UK Tories: their attempts to get anything done were crippled by deciding to keep their fanatics on board rather than make agreements with the opposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,373
920
118
Country
USA
That'll be because you haven't engaged with any of the specifics I've brought up
It would help if more of what you think is true actually was true. You haven't presented any evidence for these apparently well documented facts to engage with, and I've been too busy lately to do my normal research-paper style responses for you. That being said, I'm going to focus on one of the things you said above, cause it's kind of a fascinating case study on context and subtext.
Reagan's own team shut down reporters' questions...
I assume you are referring to this event:
Feel free to read that whole article, but I'll quote the transcript pieces here for convenience:
Lester Kinsolving: Does the president have any reaction to the announcement by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta that AIDS is now an epidemic in over 600 cases?

Larry Speakes: AIDS? I haven't got anything on it.

Lester Kinsolving: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." [Press pool laughter.] No, it is. It's a pretty serious thing. One in every three people that get this have died. And I wonder if the president was aware of this.

Larry Speakes: I don't have it. [Press pool laughter.] Do you?

Lester Kinsolving: You don't have it? Well, I'm relieved to hear that, Larry! [Press pool laughter.]

Larry Speakes: Do you?

Lester Kinsolving: No, I don't.

Larry Speakes: You didn't answer my question. How do you know? [Press pool laughter.]

Lester Kinsolving: Does the president — in other words, the White House — look on this as a great joke?

Larry Speakes: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.

------------Later Exchange----------------

Larry Speakes: Lester is beginning to circle now. He's moving up front. Go ahead.

Lester Kinsolving: Since the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta report is going to… [Press pool laughter.]

Larry Speakes: This is going to be an AIDS question.

Lester Kinsolving: …that an estimated…

Larry Speakes: You were close.

Lester Kinsolving: Can I ask the question, Larry? That an estimated 300,000 people have been exposed to AIDS, which can be transmitted through saliva. [This is false; HIV can only be transmitted through blood, semen, pre-cum, rectal fluids, vaginal fluids, and breast milk.] Will the president, as commander in chief, take steps to protect armed forces, food, and medical services from AIDS patients or those who run the risk of spreading AIDS in the same manner that they bed typhoid fever people from being involved in the health or food services? [Through this question, laughter can be heard coming from the press pool.]

Larry Speakes: I don't know.

Lester Kinsolving: Is the president concerned about this subject, Larry?

Larry Speakes: I haven't heard him express concern.

Lester Kinsolving: That seems to have evoked such jocular reaction here. [Press pool laughter.]

Unidentified person: It isn't only the jocks, Lester.

Unidentified person: Has he sworn off water faucets now?

Lester Kinsolving: No, but I mean, is he going to do anything, Larry?

Larry Speakes: Lester, I have not heard him express anything. Sorry.

Lester Kinsolving: You mean he has expressed no opinion about this epidemic?

Larry Speakes: No, but I must confess I haven't asked him about it.

Lester Kinsolving: Will you ask him, Larry?

Larry Speakes: Have you been checked? [Press pool laughter.]

Unidentified person: Is the president going to ban mouth-to-mouth kissing?

Lester Kinsolving: What? Pardon? I didn't hear your answer.

Larry Speakes: [Laughs.] Ah, it's hard work. I don't get paid enough. Um. Is there anything else we need to do here?
The Vox perspective on that is that the Reagan administration was laughing at AIDS. Saying the press secretary and members of the press corps called in "the gay plague", that this is a demonstration of them not taking the epidemic seriously. But if you look with a discerning eye, you may notice a few details that are a bit contradictory to that reading of the events. It's the reporter who asked the questions, Lester Kinsolving, who introduced the term "gay plague" into the conversation, and who was responsible for misinformation about the transmission. The people laughing and joking were laughing at the reporter, and one of the jokes at his expense was asking if the president would ban kissing. In the second transcript, Kinsolving had hardly made it ten words before the Press Secretary knew what the question was, it was a repeated pattern of behavior. All of these are small hints at the truth, but they really change how you may see these exchanges when you know the context: who was Lester Kinsolving?
"Kinsolving was an outspoken opponent of gay rights organizations – "the sodomy lobby," as he referred to them..." Yeah, that makes a big difference. A modern audience reading those transcripts, especially with the way places like Vox frame them, is never going to imagine the reporter is the homophobe. But that's the actual context. Lester Kinsolving wasn't deeply interested in AIDS for the sake of victims of the disease, he was a vocal opponent of gay rights. The rest of the press corps was laughing and mocking him because he was trying to drum up a gay scare. The subtext of his questions is that Kinsolving wanted Raegan to enact sodomy laws and curfews on gay men, a subtext that is much clearer in the third sound clip that Vox strategically decided to exclude from their reporting.

Take a listen yourself:

You may notice if you do listen that when someone asks a serious question about AIDS, Speakes gives a serious answer about how the President has been briefed and has ordered higher priority be given to the problem. The thing that they are mocking, that they treated with derision, is Kinsolving, and his repeated desire for the president to do something about "the gays".

Does that put a dent in your perspective?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,805
5,730
118
Country
United Kingdom
It would help if more of what you think is true actually was true. You haven't presented any evidence for these apparently well documented facts to engage with, and I've been too busy lately to do my normal research-paper style responses for you.
The incidents I mentioned are matters of public record. It's not my fault if you assume I'm lying and then fail to check, simply because they implicate organisations you like. But I'll provide citations below.

That being said, I'm going to focus on one of the things you said above, cause it's kind of a fascinating case study on context and subtext.

[...]

Does that put a dent in your perspective?
Firstly, I'll say it's quite amusing that when you say you'll address only one allegation, you choose the least significant one-- someone joking and belittling a question, rather than the cut research funding, the nixxed public health campaigns, or the lying about the effect of condoms.

But in reply to your question: not really, no. Because the sole information you've presented is that the reporter was a homophobe. That doesn't substantially change anything-- the question is still relevant at its core, and it still just elicits laughter and dismissal from the Press Sec.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,067
8,266
118

Just imagine. Probably not tho. Speaker kinda requires doing stuff, and Trump is lazy.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,373
920
118
Country
USA
Firstly, I'll say it's quite amusing that when you say you'll address only one allegation, you choose the least significant one-- someone joking and belittling a question, rather than the cut research funding,
There was no cut funding. These were budget plans that had not yet been enacted. Nothing was cut, nothing was taken back. HHS requested $96 million, the administration proposed $86 million instead, and had that been the end of it, that still wouldn't qualify as a budget cut, as it was an increase in spending from the previous year. But even that didn't happen, as the budget passed by congress ultimately ended up closer to $200 million.
That wasn't a nixed public health campaign, read your own source: "Lord Fowler said the Aids awareness campaign he launched was an enormous success and cited British Market Research Bureau results which showed that the proportion of people who claimed to know something about Aids doubled from 44 per cent to 94 per cent as a result. The researchers concluded that the campaign “substantially achieved the objectives of educating the public and influencing the climate of opinion on a basis for behaviour modification”."

The AIDS awareness campaign happened. The thing Margaret Thatcher nixed was a ministerial broadcast about it, which is to say her personally making a statement on air. It's not a cover up to leave public health messaging to the Department of Public Health and Social Security.
That's not likely a lie, it's just simple ignorance. The statistical statement is actually reasonably accurate: sometimes condoms fail, sometimes condoms fail to stop STDs from spreading, things get past condoms. This is by misuse or defect, not because things pass through the material, but it does happen. A single Catholic Cardinal not understanding how condoms physically work (and sometimes fail) is not the Catholic Church lying about condoms. It's at worst that one guy lying, but it's almost certainly just ignorance. You can condemn him for making statements on things he doesn't understand if you'd like, but if you want to insist that is a Catholic campaign to lie about condoms, you are the liar.
But in reply to your question: not really, no. Because the sole information you've presented is that the reporter was a homophobe. That doesn't substantially change anything-- the question is still relevant at its core, and it still just elicits laughter and dismissal from the Press Sec.
What question elicits laughter? The first time he's laughed at is when he says they call it "gay plague".

If Alex Jones was in that room, and demanded answers about the government turning the friggin' frogs gay, and the rest of the room mocked him, would you interpret that as "the administration doesn't care about the effects of chemical releases into the water supply"?
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,358
2,018
118
Most of this post, even where technically true, comes across as a nitpicking attempt to deny the undeniable. Both Reagan and Thatcher obviously were against taking significant action against AIDS and attempted to restrict dealing with it at any turn, because they did not like the adverse political implications with some of their voters or, at worst, were homoophobic themselves.

The fact that people elsewhere within government (such as the UK Health Secretary Norman Fowler) worked to push measures through anyway does not usefully rebut the accusations of negligence over AIDS at the highest level, and the systemic barriers they imposed on tackling it.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,373
920
118
Country
USA
Most of this post, even where technically true, comes across as a nitpicking attempt to deny the undeniable. Both Reagan and Thatcher obviously were against taking significant action against AIDS and attempted to restrict dealing with it at any turn, because they did not like the adverse political implications with some of their voters or, at worst, were homoophobic themselves.

The fact that people elsewhere within government (such as the UK Health Secretary Norman Fowler) worked to push measures through anyway does not usefully rebut the accusations of negligence over AIDS at the highest level, and the systemic barriers they imposed on tackling it.
If all the evidence of them being against action and imposing systemic barriers are bunk, and yet you still insist they exist, there's nothing that could ever be done to change your mind. You've subscribed to an unfalsifiable narrative.

I will try again to flip this around so you can see clearly what's happening. Imagine a Democrat is the president, and they receive a budget request from the military for double their previous funding. The president then counter offers with 10% less than literally everything they asked for, overall an 80% increase in funding. Then Fox News blasts out the headline that the Democratic president is cutting military funds because they hate the military. Do you take that reporting seriously? 40 years later, do you use that as evidence that Democrats at the time were adverse to military spending and imposed systemic barriers? I don't think you do.

There's a war going on in Ukraine. I'm sure it's of concern to the population of the UK. Has the Prime Minister done a personal televised statement to the public about that war? (I don't actually know the answer to that question.) If not, does that count as suppressing information?

Do you have any reason to believe what you do? You expect me to rebut the accusations of negligence, but do those accusations have any real basis? Show me something that could make someone without existing biases reach the conclusions that you hold as true.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,805
5,730
118
Country
United Kingdom
There was no cut funding. These were budget plans that had not yet been enacted. Nothing was cut, nothing was taken back. HHS requested $96 million, the administration proposed $86 million instead, and had that been the end of it, that still wouldn't qualify as a budget cut, as it was an increase in spending from the previous year. But even that didn't happen, as the budget passed by congress ultimately ended up closer to $200 million.
Yes, the budget passed by Congress-- despite Reagan's effort to undercut the HHS request at the cost of AIDS research. You cannot attribute credit to Reagan for things that were done despite him.

In 1985, it was $96m. Reagan proposed to reduce that to $86. It was Congress that then returned the $244m figure... which Reagan again reduced by 22%. So it ended up much higher than in 1985... solely as a result of Congress, while Reagan had first attempted a drastic cut.

That wasn't a nixed public health campaign, read your own source: "Lord Fowler said the Aids awareness campaign he launched was an enormous success and cited British Market Research Bureau results which showed that the proportion of people who claimed to know something about Aids doubled from 44 per cent to 94 per cent as a result. The researchers concluded that the campaign “substantially achieved the objectives of educating the public and influencing the climate of opinion on a basis for behaviour modification”."

The AIDS awareness campaign happened. The thing Margaret Thatcher nixed was a ministerial broadcast about it, which is to say her personally making a statement on air. It's not a cover up to leave public health messaging to the Department of Public Health and Social Security.
Firstly: no, it was not merely the broadcast. She also personally opposed leafletting, or descriptions of high-risk activities even within public health materials. Her ministers are on record as stating these efforts went ahead /despite her opposition/.

Secondly, no, nixxing a public broadcast is not the same as merely keeping herself personally out of it. She opposed it going out.

That's not likely a lie, it's just simple ignorance. The statistical statement is actually reasonably accurate: sometimes condoms fail, sometimes condoms fail to stop STDs from spreading, things get past condoms. This is by misuse or defect, not because things pass through the material, but it does happen. A single Catholic Cardinal not understanding how condoms physically work (and sometimes fail) is not the Catholic Church lying about condoms. It's at worst that one guy lying, but it's almost certainly just ignorance. You can condemn him for making statements on things he doesn't understand if you'd like, but if you want to insist that is a Catholic campaign to lie about condoms, you are the liar.
"A single Catholic cardinal"... who happened to be head of the Pontifical Council of the Family. If he was speaking from sheer ignorance, that's hardly a defence: it's still an example of enormously harmful misinformation.

What question elicits laughter? The first time he's laughed at is when he says they call it "gay plague".
"I don't have it [laughter] do you?"

^ that's a fucking inexcusable reply. It's pretty incredible that you think it's acceptable for a press sec to say this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,373
920
118
Country
USA
She opposed it going out.
Do you think the Ministerial Cabinet Committee on AIDS existed against the will of the Prime Minister? Did that accidentally slip by her?
If he was speaking from sheer ignorance, that's hardly a defence: it's still an example of enormously harmful misinformation.
It's not a defense of the statement, no. It is a defense against your accusations though. You blame conservative politics for the spread of AIDS, but every reason you have to believe that is false.
"I don't have it [laughter] do you?"

^ that's a fucking inexcusable reply. It's pretty incredible that you think it's acceptable for a press sec to say this.
It's not couth, that's for sure. But he's mocking a homophobe. That comment is an insult because the person he's saying it to hates gay people. People here do literally the same thing all the time, should anyone in public say something negative about homosexuality, a pile of people is at the ready to accuse them of being gay. I don't disagree that it's not the most professional thing to do as a government representative, but again, it's a defense against your accusations. You believe the Raegan administration shut down comments and suppressed information on AIDS, but your evidence is them mocking a homophobe.

And you are very willing to sidestep the serious answer about the president being briefed and considering it a priority and asking for research funds, and skip straight to whatever you think may best justify your poorly founded opinions.