We were talking about the broadcast. I take it from your effort to shift the conversation that you've conceded she did in fact oppose the broadcast, and those other aspects of the awareness campaign I cited.
You've not shown the falsehood of a single one yet. My reason was that the Catholic Church shared harmful misinformation. You've now acknowledged that was in fact true, and your sole defence is that the head of the Pontifical Council was catastrophically ignorant rather than malicious. But the harm of the misinformation remains, doesn't it? So my reason for ascribing blame remains.
Actually, the relevant part of the exchange is how they point-blank refuse to answer the question. The fact they find it hilarious to ask people if they have AIDS is indicative of their attitude, but not the crux of this.
Asking for *a reduction in research funds.
I hear Laurence Fox is suddenly available too.Q-Anon Shaman wants to be Speaker. Not the worst platform tho.
Also, Jim Jordan wants the seat too. I propose a no holds barred cage match between it and this guy on the House floor. Winner gets the job.
Yes, as anyone who holistically read up on the matter in detail would know.
Rock Hudson's announcement was really the game changer in general, not just for Reagan. Even in the public, his announcement that he was infected changed it from being "the gay plague" to "The disease that killed Rock Hudson". Now they had the face and name of someone who had died from it. They knew someone who had died from it.
It's a necessary shift. I'm sure she also opposed burning the word AIDS onto the surface of the moon. One can oppose methods while supporting the goal. She supported methods that largely accomplished that goal. You can't judge someone for not having done literally every possible thing.
You can't demonstrate harm either. The vague message without the specific mechanism is accurate, and nobody would listen to only the wrong part. The incorrect understanding still reaches the proper conclusion.
Listen to the audio.
Holistically? You must be joking. You've read the same propaganda regurgitated through different channels, that's not holistic in any way.
In post #12,193, I posted audio of Reagan's press secretary including some in 1983 stating Reagan had been briefed, considered it a priority, and was directing (I think) $12,000,000 towards research on it. You claim, without evidence, that he did nothing of consequence til 1986. I choose to believe my ears over your post. I understand you are repeating what you've read, but if you want to talk about nitpicking and technical truths, Reagan not talking about AIDS is a huge "well technically..." moment. Did he make statements about HIV? Yes. Did his administration acknowledge and respond to AIDS? Yes. But did he personally make a statement using the word AIDS prominently? Not til 1987, and apparently that's what's important. Years of action are irrelevant if you don't say Simon says first.
It's not that she "didn't do literally every possible thing", though, is it? She opposed pretty much everything the ministers put forward-- and the eventual public awareness campaign run by Norman Fowler was comprised of elements that were included despite her opposition. Had she had her way, the public awareness campaign would have been practically nonexistent.
No, it absolutely does not reach the proper conclusion. The conclusion is 'don't use condoms, because HIV gets through them anyway'. That is categorically an insanely dangerous message-- the proper use of condoms drastically reduces transmission risks, and here's the head of the Pontifical Council telling people they don't work and don't use em.
Are you denying that Reagan's initial request was for $86m? And that that's a lower figure than $96m?
You are making a bold interpretation of the information available to you. They wanted a tv campaign with her, she didn't want to be the face of it, they did the tv campaign without her. They wanted leaflets to include warnings and descriptions of "risky sex", she didn't like that specific part, but otherwise she seems to have supported leafleting. You are taking opposition to specifics as opposition to the goal, but it just isn't true.
That's not how logic works. If someone said "a seatbelt is insufficient to protect you from injury or death, you need to drive safer", how many people do you imagine hear that and stop wearing seatbelts? I see no reason to believe that any single person heard what he said and acted on it in that way.
No, I'm referencing an event 3 years earlier than that. Listen to the audio.
No, she opposed leafletting at all when it was first suggested ("My first reaction is against it", in her words) then finally gave approval three months later.
You're still completely misrepresenting what was actually said. If someone said, "wearing seatbelts cannot protect you in the event of a collision, and actually makes you less safe"-- which is analogous to what the Cardinal said-- then yes, that would realistically convince people not to use them.
The $12m? You think that negates the suggestion to cut the AIDS budget in 1986?
Just found out Richard Ayoade is married to Lydia Fox, sister to Laurence Fox. Cant imagine what those festive family get togethers must be like. Well, for now am imagining a 'Ready or Not' style night of "games" until proven otherwise.
I assume Ayoade says he's got to work every single year and picks up a shift at the roughest bar in town and considers himself lucky.
Against what? Was that a response to the idea of leaflets, or did they show her leaflets with specifics already printed?
A ministerial broadcast is a subset of tv campaigns. That isn't a shift at all.
My analogy is accurate, yours is not. Though since he was speaking in analogy, we can use his. He compared condoms to cigarette filters, which do not protect you from the dangers of smoking, suggesting condoms should have warning labels like cigarettes to tell you what the risks are. Condoms are only like 90% effective at preventing HIV transmission. 10% risk seems worth communicating.
There was no cut, early money is worth more than later money, and that amount is more than the difference in the theoretical budgets anyway.
Against the idea of a countrywide leafletting campaign.
Ministerial Broadcasts are a specific thing. They are used in UK politics sparingly, and always on matters of great import: nationwide lockdowns, war, epidemics. Their use carries weight and import that a mere ad campaign does not.
What absolute horseshit this is. You're reimagining what he said to be far more palatable, conveniently ommitting or rewriting all the dangerous misinformation bits.
There was no cut... because Reagan's suggested cut was rebuffed. So again, you're attributing credit to Reagan for the fact that Congress refused his budget. That's some moon logic.
nymag.com
I'm not good in geography. Is Galilee in Ireland or in Norway ?Trump’s Jesus Court Sketch Is Somehow Way Worse Than It Looks
Being confusing and blasphemous is just the start.
Jesus Christ, as depicted in the fake courtroom sketch Trump reposted. Photo: @dom_lucre/X
While Donald Trump is responsible for unhinged, incoherent content on Truth Social every single day, an image he posted on Monday evening stood out for being especially offensive and delusional. Tucked between video clips of Trump’s remarks hours earlier outside a Manhattan courtroom, where he is being tried for fraud in a civil lawsuit brought by New York attorney general Letitia James, was a screenshot of a tweet from user Dom Lucre showing a fake courtroom sketch of Jesus by Trump’s side.
The image is ridiculous, blasphemous, and confusing. Is Jesus supposed to be Trump’s co-defendant or his attorney? Does the caption “nobody could have made it this far alone” mean Trump being hauled before the court for his decades of alleged business fraud is part of some divine plan? And who is this “Dom Lucre” anyway?
