Ah, well, getting back to the OP, sounds like the actions of a pol who doesn’t have his shit together quite the way he should, but it’s still too soon to make a definite diagnosis of Alzheimer’s.
At the moment.
Here is my take on McCain’s answer:
He couldn’t give two shits about AIDS spreading in Africa, and if we are honest with ourselves, most of us don’t either. I mean, we care in a general sense in that we don’t want anyone to suffer, but it is so far removed from our lives that I doubt any of us wake up in the morning and have to go vomit because we can’t face another day in this cruel world, what with AIDS speading like it is in Africa.
That being said, McCain probably hadn’t thought very much about it, and when asked, he got sort of stumped because he didn’t want to say the wrong thing and piss off the religious right, or say something different than what Bush had done and make waves there. So he tried to make a joke about getting his aide to check out what his position was, but the reporter wouldn’t let him off that easy, so he tried to brush it off.
Some of you might say that he should have said what he felt anyways, but the truth is he doesn’t care. And you don’t either.
You don’t care. Perhaps some of us do, jtgain. Maybe some of us have tried to help, despite the outpouring of antipathy from both our administration and the governments of Africa.
Your attitude makes exactly as much sense as someone in the 80s not caring about AIDS because only the homosexuals get it.
please cite how much “we” don’t care. Hasn’t the US population/government dedicated umpteen billions of dollars to this cause?
I understand that from a wealth perspective that we as a nation could have given more, but…we don’t care at all? We don’t give? We don’t fund research?
I think a lot of people in the 80s didn’t care much about AIDS because “only the homosexuals get it”. And actually, regarding this administration, for all the things you can criticize the Bush administration for, it’s actually been pretty good about aid to Africa and AIDS programs in Africa in particular.
Huh?
The OP’s criticism of McCain was less to do with his position on aid to Africa than with his apparent complete lack of comprehension of the prophylactic (heh) value of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and also with his open-mouth stupor over what the government’s policy should be regarding sex education policies right here in America.
Of course, folks like Sam Stone, exhibiting intellectual generosity of Brobdingnagian proportions, choose to interpret McCain’s stupor as evidence of his laudable commitment to ideals of government non-intervention in private issues. The fact that the McCain camp’s own statements about the issue refute this interpretation is a mere technicality.
Yeah, in my opinion you can count the successes of the Bush administration on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to throw a fastball, but one area where they’ve done pretty well is on aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS-related issues.
Meh. Not so much, most of the funds have been tied to abstinence programs, which work about as well as they do here. Okay, not quite as well. So, sure, more money… but forcing everyone to operate with both hands tied behind their back.
They’ve made a whole lot of big noises about how much they’ve been helping Africa, though!
Funny, I was under the impression that the funds were tied to programs modeled after the one in Uganda that focused on curbing risky sexual behavior and had a pretty good record of success.
Do you have some sort of cite to the contrary?
Last I checked I don’t have any obligation to cite an opinion. I don’t need a damn thing to be accepted by you or anyone else. A church is very much shaped by its leaders, and the leader of Obama’s Church is most definitely a bigot.
I’m not saying I’m against providing cites–when I’ve made a factual claim. But it’s almost impossible to prove someone is a racist, even someone who is a self-proclaimed racist. Racism is something that is only known for truth within the person, there’s no way–no actions, that can prove someone a racist or exonerate them from a charge of racism. That’s why I’m not going to get into a battle of semantics over whether or not Rev. Wright is a racist. I don’t feel one can make a factual claim as to whether or not someone is racist–you can make a statement of opinion, which is what I did. One doesn’t need to cite an opinion.
I can give my reasons for holding the opinion if you’d like. Primarily it is because of things I’ve read about Rev. Wright in toto that make me think he’s a racist. FTR I think a lot of black religious leaders in his vein are racist. I know that’s not a popular view but I think it’s a realistic view.
To be honest, I can’t necessarily blame a lot of these people for being racist. It’s human to hold bigoted feelings towards others, unfortunately that is one ugly aspect of humanity. A lot of otherwise decent people have fallen victim to these feelings, it’s much easier to fall victim to them when you and your peer group feel oppressed by a given ethnicity.
I could just as well ask for a cite that Adolf Hitler was racist, or that a member of the Ku Klux Klan is racist. The fact of the matter is we can only make a general assumption about whether or not someone is a racist. The only person who knows for sure is the person in question–even a pronouncement of “I am a racist” can’t be seen as definitive proof (people lie.)
My assumptions about Obama are tied in with my opinions/assumptions about Rev. Wright and his Church, and the racist ideologies his church and many other churches like it toy with.
No, this is not a thread about John McCain, this is a thread about Barack Obama.
I’m sorry, but you’ve clearly positioned yourself like RTFirefly was a few months back–you’re a partisan on the war path. Any political post you make has to be looked at in the context of who you are as a poster. While RTFirefly was just on a general anti-[Every Republican] warpath you’re on a pro-Obama war path.
And that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with using whatever public forums exist (including message boards of questionable utility in “getting out the word”) to advocate a candidate you support. But you can’t separate yourself from that advocacy.
If John McCain was just a Senator from Arizona this thread would not exist.
In your case, I don’t think this thread would exist if Hillary Clinton had clinched the nomination a few months ago–you’re only in this as an advocate for Obama, so it’s only fair we bring that into this, and that by association brings in discussion about Obama himself.
That’s fine and good, to cry like a baby and refuse further debate anytime someone calls you on your partisan bullshit.
I will concede that it is entirely possible you did in fact discover this through innocent net perusal, it appears I was wrong on that–I wasn’t aware this story was on such prominent sites like Fark.
However, “good faith” is a questionable term for you to use. You brought this to the attention of the board to push for Obama, period.
If you were just interested in posting interesting news articles about McCain, or discussing John McCain, I wonder why you haven’t posted the article on Fark’s politics tab indicating McCain leads Obama in Rasmussen polling done in several blue states.
How will John McCain’s brainfart hurt the Democrats?
Actually I think it’s easy enough to see that McCain was talking about spending government money on distributing contraceptives, and his answers were in the vein of “I’m not sure spending government funds on these programs helps prevent the spread of HIV.” There’s certainly evidence that condoms can stop the transmission of HIV from one person to another–however, it is not something to just be assumed that spending money on distributing condoms or whatever is going to lower the rate at which HIV is spread.
I believe the data shows such program do help lessen the spread of HIV, but no program is perfect, and someone who isn’t involved regularly in such programs has no factual basis to say whether or not those programs are effective. You can be unsure about how effective a program to distribute contraceptives is without being unsure as to whether or not a condom can prevent the spread of HIV.
It’s not a subtle difference, McCain wasn’t talking about whether or not a condom can prevent the spread of HIV from HIV+ person A and HIV negative person B. He was talking about a government program, and that was what the reporter was talking about.
(I find it interesting the reporter was using the words contraceptive in his initial questions and condoms in his later question. A contraceptive isn’t necessarily going to do jack-shit to protect you from infection. Not all contraceptives are condoms.)
Mr, Straight talk McCain knew the truth. He is not stupid. He was trying to remember the position which would not offend the base he is trying to pander to. He was evasive and lying.
A third, this one says, goes to abstinence education programs. I’m aware of the Uganda program, and what it credits. I’m also aware that non-abstinence programs are considerably easier and cheaper to run, and show greater effects.
Remember, Abstinence brings dignity.
Of course, if you’re married, you have every right to have sex with your wife. Even if it kills her.
Of course, it doesn’t matter if your program may do damage to the successful Uganda program. You’re preaching abstinence.
It’s lucky we’ve got balanced moderates like you to point out who the partisans are.
Quoted for truth. It’s something i remember every single time i read one of your contributions to this message board.
Your have such a tenuous grasp on reality that you’re really not worth debating. Your “arguments” in this thread challenge the late, unlamented milroyj for the most disingenuous, tortuous, illogical statements i’ve seen on this board. And that’s quite a feat. I can’t decide if you’re the dumbest person i’ve ever come across, or just the most dishonest.
We mostly don’t, but we should.
And some of us do.
McCain should, but he doesn’t, not in any slightly defensible respect, any more.
And those of us who do, should not take him seriously in any way, not now, and not in November.
Hilarious.
Wait, scary.
Um…
Hiscarilous.
edit- man- i didn’t see that this had made it to two pages. Now I see that Rubystreak has used the exact same words as me up there in post 51. What a coincidence.
Seriously, if this is what the McCain flaks have got to offer… this whole election circus hasn’t even gotten *started * being entertaining yet! Hold on, America, this is going to be one crazy, fucked up, hiscarilous ride to November.
He’s a Senator from Arizona WHO’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
Shayna’s claim: McCain’s not too sharp.
Your retort: Doesn’t matter, his opponent’s a racist.
So your retort is both illogical and untrue.
** How do people become (and stay) so ignorant?**
Huh.
Very interesting cites, E-Sabbath. They rather prove my point - that the Bush administration is funding condom distribution, and that the successful Uganda program that we both admire makes abstinence and fidelity cornerstones of its efforts.
So I don’t know what your beef is. You have me terribly confused.