Suddenly PM Harper Cares About Aids

[BC_chick]

....but he's handled things with good decisions and strong principles. Whenever he is interviewed, he gives the most concise and substantive answers that I have ever seen from a Canadian leader.

Principled? Concise?

To me, his "principles" change overnight and shamelessly, and his "concise" answers are more frequently than not nothing but blaming Liberals for anything he does wrong.

Just goes to show how much our personal opinions affect our perceptions.

[Canadian Blue]

Perhaps you failed to see I was over stating and generalizing, to make a point to the person who called the left loony. Though I think you did see it. But choose to take the oppotunity to bash the left.

I'm more of a liberal libertarian, probably going to vote for the Green Party. But I'm rational as well, I commended you for the one post you did. But then you veer off into paranoia dystopia territory, and it just seem's like lunacy.

The guy who made the original post was part of the looney left, I've criticized people like Robert777 who are to the extreme right before as well.

[Catchme]

Harper like most Conservatives always figured aids sufferers were nothing but a bunch of gays who got what they deserved. Now suddenly he cares?

What the #@#$@? Did you see this in a Liberal campaign advertisement?

Oh come on, you really believe all Canadians are stupid. Anyone can see that, it is written for goodness sake. Problem is there are people who are doing everything they can to deny the hypocrite that Harper is.

The reason Harper is a good leader is partly that he is a rational, not emotional person. He doesn't let his personal beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. He does in the end what he thinks is right for the nation, not for him. If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him.

Harper is not apparently rational, and he is definitely emotional, and he is definitely letting his beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. Harper always does what he thinks is best for him, who are you trying to kid? Wrong on all 4 accounts.

And what is with the comment; "If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him"?

[Canadian Blue]

Harper is not apparently rational, and he is definitely emotional, and he is definitely letting his beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation.

I guess that's why he's still been able to maintain a minority government.

Harper always does what he thinks is best for him, who are you trying to kid?

So, is Harper secretly sending money to the Cayman Islands.

I'm really not sure what's with this idea he's a homophobe. What was so homophobic, a free vote which was defeated. I mean come on, while he was a member of the Reform Party I think social conservatives disliked him alot.

In all honesty I think each one of the federal party leaders believes that what they are doing is best for the country, well except for Duceppe for obvious reason's. The biggest problem is none of them can get over their pride and work together, however I will give kudos to Jack Layton for atleast working with the Conservatives in bringing about better solution's. Even on the Quebec vote Harper asked Stephan Dion for advice.

[Catchme]

Harper is not maintaining a minority government, the polls show is below where he was when elected.

The minority has been sustained because of Liberral Party disarrray, and the NDP understanding that Canadians wanted the government to work and did not want an election.

Putting words in my mouth, yet again, that aren't there, I see. Please refrain from doing so.

Please provide proof that Harper asked Dion anything.

[scribblet]

Sorry but Harper wants that majority more than anything in this world. He will do anything to get it but when and if he does you can rest easy scriblett, all this will be gone with the wind. A lepeard does change its spots and Harper could care less about Canadians, he just wants the power as Mr. Harris of Ontario did, to make himself a multimillionaire.

Good grief woman, and you think Dion and the rest of the Liberals don't want that majority more than anything in the world. Believe me, I'll rest a lot more easily when Harper has a majority and we are free from Liberal shenanigans and plans to strip us of our freedoms (see other thread on theo cons).

Your obsession about Harris is eating your soul and will turn you into a prune, especially when your hate obfuscates the issues and refuses to allow you to open your mind.

cheers

[margrace]

Sorry but Harper wants that majority more than anything in this world. He will do anything to get it but when and if he does you can rest easy scriblett, all this will be gone with the wind. A lepeard does change its spots and Harper could care less about Canadians, he just wants the power as Mr. Harris of Ontario did, to make himself a multimillionaire.

Good grief woman, and you think Dion and the rest of the Liberals don't want that majority more than anything in the world. Believe me, I'll rest a lot more easily when Harper has a majority and we are free from Liberal shenanigans and plans to strip us of our freedoms (see other thread on theo cons).

Your obsession about Harris is eating your soul and will turn you into a prune, especially when your hate obfuscates the issues and refuses to allow you to open your mind.

cheers

Shaking head in disbelief, wonder how you people can be so blind and deaf

[JerrySeinfeld]

A few months ago PM Harper didnt give a hoot about the enviroment.

Now he acts like he will be the saviour of it.

Harper like most Conservatives always figured aids sufferers were nothing but a bunch of gays who got what they deserved.

Now suddenly he cares?

Source? Cite?

[imatitlover]

Still comes down to this.

Not too long ago PM Harper cared less about the enviroment and as he showed by snubbing the aids conference, he cared less about people with aids.Bill Gates was there then.Not Stevie

Now his people have told him the way to win a majority is to pretend you do care about these worthy causes.

And as one poster brought up.

” Mr. Harper said at a joint press conference with Mr. Gates. “This collaboration between Canada’s new government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

What the heck? The NEW government?

Is it the Government of Canada or not?

Exactly.Obviously something PM Harper has been told to say repeatedly.

NEW GOVERNMENT?

And people think PM Harper doesnt have something up his sleeve as to why he suddenly cares about aids?

And if people believe that people like PM Harper doesnt consider aids to be a gay disease think again.

NO ROOM FOR AIDS IN HARPER,TIDY MIND

Stephen Harper’s curt refusal to attend the international conference on AIDS in Toronto was much more than a major political gaffe, although it certainly was that. And it was not just that Steve would feel uncomfortable in the presence of Bill Gates, the world’s richest man, and Bill Clinton, the charismatic liberal who has more capacity to feel the pain of others in any pore of his body than Harper has in his whole being. As a neo-conservative true believer---Harper is a more principled neo-con than George W. Bush will ever be---Stephen Harper has no room in his tidy mind for most of the ills that roil the world.

Neo conservatives like Harper, and our Canadian export to Washington, David Frum, are offended by most of the human race. They picture themselves as members of an “elect”. They are the chosen ones who understand.

In the mind of the neo-con, personal responsibility is the highest good. You are what you make yourself. It is a sign that you are a member of the elect if you have prospered. Wealth is a badge of honour, of achievement, of self-discipline. The poor man you see outside your door is just as surely the author of his own misfortune as the rich man is of his bountiful success. In this atomistic social universe, the individual cares for himself and his family. If everyone would only behave this way, what a prosperous world we all would have. (For a simple, daily dose of this ideology, read the columns of Margaret Wente.)

In the mental system of the neo-con, AIDS sufferers are seen as having chosen the path that has led them to their misfortune. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, neo-con writers like Washington journalist George F. Will went to great lengths to prove that AIDS was not a general social problem, but only a self-made affliction for gay men. As the pandemic has spread, so that tens of millions are now in its grasp, this uninformed, vicious take on the disease is no longer promulgated in polite company. It still, however, is at the root of the neo-con gospel that sexual abstinence is the key to combating AIDS. It remains all about individual behaviour as far as neo-cons are concerned.

This is not the first time in history that an inhuman, ruling ideology has stood in the way of the alleviation of the suffering of millions of people. In the middle of the 19th century, during the Irish potato famine, in which a million people starved to death, the British upper classes were determined not to feed the hungry on the other side of the Irish Sea. To have done so, and the British Empire was capable of doing so, would have been a violation of the rules of the market. Since the Irish had no means to pay for imported food, nothing could be done. Indeed, Ireland went on exporting agricultural products to other parts of the world at the peak of the famine.

Steve wouldn’t have fitted in at a conference where people accept the idea that there is a social dimension to the human journey, that we are all in this together and that the suffering of a large part of humanity is the suffering of the whole world.

[Canadian Blue]

Wow that article obviously wan't biased. Really, why post that article, which was just written by some ranting lunatic.

The minority has been sustained because of Liberral Party disarrray, and the NDP understanding that Canadians wanted the government to work and did not want an election.

So hold on, a majority of members voted in favor of government motion's, simply because they didn't want to force an election.

Putting words in my mouth, yet again, that aren't there, I see. Please refrain from doing so.

No, I got words from your post.

Please provide proof that Harper asked Dion anything.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...3050b68&k=69741

Harper consulted then-Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion on the wording of the motion, which passed the house of Commons by a vote of 266-16.

[Canadian Blue]

Besides that, I'd like to point out that if you only get information from a some left wing ravings, then chances are your not going to get the other side of the story.

[geoffrey]

That article also needs to be cited properly, it's violating both the forum rules and copyright rules at the very least.

[Catchme]

The blogged article was obviously posted only to point out/prove where Harper showed/proved he cared nothing for HIV/AIDS. Dissing the article only shows an attempt to deflect away from the proof presented that Harper's snub of the AIDS conference says it all.

The fact that he did not attend, and snubbed it, indicates the very real hypocrisy of Harper's now trying to appear as if he cares about HIV/AIDS, when he made a huge political gaff in NOT going to the AIDS conference in Toronto. His actions clearly sent a message out about how little store he puts into HIV/AIDS and people.

This attempt, to cover that gaff and the message it sent, is highly spurious, and it only indicates that Harper trying to regain lost political support, and regard.

This NEW interest by Harper, in AIDS is only indicative of: hypocrisy, lack of personal integrity, and how far Harper is willing to go, to try and stay at 24 Sussex.

These could be the only reasons why he did not attend and his absence sends out the following messages.

1) He's homophobic.

2) He's anti-social.

3) He's afraid of his political rivals.

4) He can't deal with confrontations.

None of them indicate a person who should be running a country.

[Keepitsimple]

The blogged article was obviously posted only to point out/prove where Harper showed/proved he cared nothing for HIV/AIDS. Dissing the article only shows an attempt to deflect away from the proof presented that Harper's snub of the AIDS conference says it all.

The fact that he did not attend, and snubbed it, indicates the very real hypocrisy of Harper's now trying to appear as if he cares about HIV/AIDS, when he made a huge political gaff in NOT going to the AIDS conference in Toronto. His actions clearly sent a message out about how little store he puts into HIV/AIDS and people.

This attempt, to cover that gaff and the message it sent, is highly spurious, and it only indicates that Harper trying to regain lost political support, and regard.

This NEW interest by Harper, in AIDS is only indicative of: hypocrisy, lack of personal integrity, and how far Harper is willing to go, to try and stay at 24 Sussex.

These could be the only reasons why he did not attend and his absence sends out the following messages.

1) He's homophobic.

2) He's anti-social.

3) He's afraid of his political rivals.

4) He can't deal with confrontations.

None of them indicate a person who should be running a country.

Catchme, you're absolutely right, and I feel your pain. In fact, Harper has no right to be at 24 Sussex at all. This is a Liberal country, damn it. Liberals really do care - care about everything, and everybody..... care deeply. They don't want power for the sake of power - Liberals simply belong in power. And that man Harper is a very bad man. The Conservatives have gone and spoiled everything. This is unfair! Those voters - they know not what they speak about!

[hiti]

So even the Blogging Torys agreed that Steve didn't care about Aids victims.

Quote By PETER WORTHINGTON: Dr. Wainberg and others feel Harper should have been there for the opening of the conference, at which they acknowledge he’d have been roundly booed — as Brian Mulroney was booed at an international AIDS conference in Montreal in 1989.

Why should Harper subject himself to this, especially when there is no gain for him, his party, or Canada?

Perhaps Harper was showing taste and sensitivity by ducking the conference. At least he’s not a hypocrite, and not sympathetic with the homosexual or same-sex marriage crowd who some feel are more susceptible to AIDS than the rest of us. Give him some credit for that.

He may even feel he stands to gain more votes by not attending than he would by attending and smiling like Pluto when he felt the opposite. -end quote

Quote from blogger: What benefit does this have in the big picture? The PM shows up, gives his half-hearted speech and then leaves, amid boos from the likes of proponents of same-sex marriage, who likely wouldn't support him or the Conservative Party if those were the last choices on the ballot. http://toryblue.blogspot.com/

Very telling

[imatitlover]

Excellent posts Catchme and hiti

[Catchme]

So even the Blogging Torys agreed that Steve didn't care about Aids victims.

Quote By PETER WORTHINGTON: Dr. Wainberg and others feel Harper should have been there for the opening of the conference, at which they acknowledge he’d have been roundly booed — as Brian Mulroney was booed at an international AIDS conference in Montreal in 1989.

Why should Harper subject himself to this, especially when there is no gain for him, his party, or Canada?

Perhaps Harper was showing taste and sensitivity by ducking the conference. At least he’s not a hypocrite, and not sympathetic with the homosexual or same-sex marriage crowd who some feel are more susceptible to AIDS than the rest of us. Give him some credit for that.

He may even feel he stands to gain more votes by not attending than he would by attending and smiling like Pluto when he felt the opposite. -end quote

Quote from blogger: What benefit does this have in the big picture? The PM shows up, gives his half-hearted speech and then leaves, amid boos from the likes of proponents of same-sex marriage, who likely wouldn't support him or the Conservative Party if those were the last choices on the ballot. http://toryblue.blogspot.com/

Very telling

Yes, I was surfing around right wing hell blog sites today, reading their commentary on this, and the general impresson was that it is just a special interest group, that sypphoned money away from real diseases that people are dying from. When it was pointed out, by the few not requiring an exorcism there, that it was not just a disease of gays, the response was 'too bad" if other heteros got it, as they were being just as promiscuous as the "fags".

[noahbody]

Harper like most Conservatives always figured aids sufferers were nothing but a bunch of gays who got what they deserved. Now suddenly he cares?

What the #@#$@? Did you see this in a Liberal campaign advertisement?

Oh come on, you really believe all Canadians are stupid. Anyone can see that, it is written for goodness sake. Problem is there are people who are doing everything they can to deny the hypocrite that Harper is.

The reason Harper is a good leader is partly that he is a rational, not emotional person. He doesn't let his personal beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. He does in the end what he thinks is right for the nation, not for him. If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him.

Harper is not apparently rational, and he is definitely emotional, and he is definitely letting his beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. Harper always does what he thinks is best for him, who are you trying to kid? Wrong on all 4 accounts.

And what is with the comment; "If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him"?

I mean you should applaude his positive actions as, since he is a rational person, he is supporting someting that an emotional leader might not.

[geoffrey]

A few things to consider when we look at how much money we are investing in dealing with AIDS:

* There has been an increase in the proportion of AIDS cases attributed to injection drug use (IDU). IDU accounted for 1.5% of all reported cases of AIDS before 1990, 4.9% between 1990 and 1995, and 10.6% in 1996.

* The proportion of AIDS cases in women has increased. The proportion of all AIDS cases that were diagnosed in women before 1990 was 6.2%; between 1990 and 1995, it was 6.9%, and in 1996, 10.6%. While the majority of AIDS cases in women are still related to heterosexual transmission, much of this rising trend among women can be attributed to the IDU exposure category (6.5% before 1990, 19.5% between 1990 and 1995, and 25% in 1996).

* An increasing trend is also noted in the AIDS cases attributed to heterosexual transmission (2.2% of all AIDS cases before 1990, 5.6% between 1990 and 1995, 9.2% in 1996).

* A decreasing proportion of reported AIDS cases is occurring in the men who have sex with men (MSM) risk category (77.7% of all AIDS cases before 1990, and 68.6% of the cases between 1990 and 1995, and 61.7% in 1996).

Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp...97_66bk3_e.html

AIDS is preventable in almost all cases, don't use IV drugs, don't have sex with randoms.

Not that many people die from it anymore:

93 AIDS deaths in Canada in 2003

Source: HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003

That was the last year that I could find statistics.

In 2003, at least 36 people died in Alpine sporting accidents in Canada.

Source: http://alpineclub-edm.org/accidents/year.asp?year=2003

Harper is going to spend $111 million on AIDS research while the Canadian government refuses to spend anything on Alpine safety awareness.

So this is my theory on the matter. If your going to blow millions on a disease generally caused by a reckless act (there are some people innocently caught in roadway avalanches), then you should be equally willing to subsidize avalanche transceivers (I carry one, most people don't, they run $400 and most people underestimate risk). You should also be willing to fund a well resourced alpine rescue team for Parks Canada, something we don't have.

Mr. Trudeau Junior, for all that I dislike him for politically, has been a profound avocate for action to prevent the deaths of all these young healthy outdoors people since the unfortunate avalanche tradegy with Michel. People listen when he speaks on Quebec nationalism, but not on Alpine safety. Unfortunate.

We could do all of this for a few million a year and save more lives than spending money on AIDS. I think I draw an accurate parallel. Both an alpine accident death and an AIDS death are preventable by not engaging in high risk activities. If I don't have sex with randoms, I'm not going to get AIDS. If I don't ski in avalanche prone terrain, I'm not going to get killed by an avalanche.

Why are Canadians so eager to blow cash on AIDS when we could instead research say, alpine safety? We'd save as many Canadian lives out doing something healthy instead of focusing on drug users and those with reckless sexual habits.

I think some funding in terms of an international study on an AIDS vaccine would be reasonable, have all the world contribute. But we're pulling way too much of the weight if we're throwing $111 million at this! Better spent in other areas in Canada IMO.

[Catchme]

'geoffrey' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:13 AM' post='188579'

A few things to consider when we look at how much money we are investing in dealing with AIDS:

* The proportion of AIDS cases in women has increased. The proportion of all AIDS cases that wree diagnosed in women before 1990 was 6.2%; between 1990 and 1995, it was 6.9%, and in 1996, 10.6%. While the majority of AIDS cases in women are still related to heterosexual transmission, much of this rising trend among women can be attributed to the IDU exposure category (6.5% before 1990, 19.5% between 1990 and 1995, and 25% in 1996).

* An increasing trend is also noted in the AIDS cases attributed to heterosexual transmission (2.2% of all AIDS cases before 1990, 5.6% between 1990 and 1995, 9.2% in 1996).

AIDS is preventable in almost all cases, don't use IV drugs, don't have sex with randoms. Not that many people die from it anymore: 93 AIDS deaths in Canada in 2003 - That was the last year that I could find statistics. ..In 2003, at least 36 people died in Alpine sporting accidents in Canada.

Harper is going to spend $111 million on AIDS research while the Canadian government refuses to spend anything on Alpine safety awareness...my theory on the matter. If your going to blow millions on a disease generally caused by a reckless act .. then you should be equally willing to subsidize avalanche transceivers ..You should also be willing to fund a well resourced alpine rescue team for Parks Canada, something we don't have.

We could do all of this for a few million a year and save more lives than spending money on AIDS. I think I draw an accurate parallel. Both an alpine accident death and an AIDS death are preventable by not engaging in high risk activities. ..Why are Canadians so eager to blow cash on AIDS when we could instead research say, alpine safety? We'd save as many Canadian lives out doing something healthy instead of focusing on drug users and those with reckless sexual habits.

I think some funding in terms of an international study on an AIDS vaccine would be reasonable, have all the world contribute. But we're pulling way too much of the weight if we're throwing $111 million at this! Better spent in other areas in Canada IMO

Wonderful, we now have a brilliant compare to a disease that is killing millions around the world, and leaving millions of orphans, to skiing accidents.

Moreover, we are being told, those who are involved with skiing accidents are more important, than those who die from AIDS, or at the very least we should be more concerned about them than we are AIDS victims. (sarcasm in case some tried to twist it) Plus, if so many are dying from alpine accidents or need rescuing it can't really be that "healthy" eh?

Why fund AIDS research, because after all, it is self inflicted, and how dare those dirty promiscuous women, who are getting it from men, who either do not know they have it or are not disclosing they have it, want funding for research that would help them and the millions of others around the world recover/prevent a killer disease. (sarcastic for those who would try to twist words)

And it seems you overlooked, that any research would help others all over the world. But of course why help them because after all it is their own faults for getting AIDS too right?

Of course, there is the obvious discrepancy, where geoffery says that, if we funded alpine rescue teams, and transmitter locaters, more lives would be saved, even though, according to stats, he presented, that show over 60 more die a year from AIDS, than deaths that occur from alpine accidents. I guess that those 36 that die a year from alpine accidents are = to the 93 who die from AIDS.

Canada, and the provinces/municipalities do subsidize SAR teams across Canada, and it costs about 30-40k for 1 rescue, incurred by taxpayers. It seems that, in fact, if one does the math, more money is already being outlayed for SAR than for AIDS. Talk about special interests group wanting more than their share.

Then there is the fact that those who take part in alpine sports, have enough money to pay for their own transmitters. Say nothing of how much 1 SAR costs for 1 person. I know, better yet, let's save millions of dollars per year, lives, wildlife and the environment by ceasing alpine sporting activities altogether.

Do you know geoffery that over 50% of women who are in jail have histories of being physically and/or sexually abused by men? Do you know that most women are in jail for drug related charges or prostitution? Do you know there was a direct correlation between addictions and physical/sexual abuse by men against other males and females? Do you know that millions of women and children of dying from AIDS around the world because they were raped by infected males? Do you know that many more middle aged women are getting AIDS because it has been brought home by their life long partners?

Do you know that there are health care workers/dentists/paramedics infected with HIV because of on the job hazards, and that there are about 1000 of them per year in Canada?

Yes, there are less deaths now, than there used to be, because of research, and even then you are not taking into consideration the billions in associated costs to the system for those that survive and have to live on cocktails of medicines for the rest of their lives.

Over all, your compare and analysis was short sighted,and ill thought out, at the very least. I will not even say what the worst could be. Suffice it to say, you give a clear picture of what Harper and his apologists feel about AIDS

Here is a link to current stats in BC and Canada not too hard to find if one looked, it was just a google that said; stats HIV Canada, that gave me 2006 results.

http://www.aidsvancouver.org/pdf/library/h...stics_oct06.pdf

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-r...7/dr2724ea.html

[imatitlover]

twist it) Plus, if so many are dying from alpine accidents or need rescuing it can't really be that "healthy" eh?

Why fund AIDS research, because after all, it is self inflicted, and how dare those dirty promiscuous women, who are getting it from men, who either do not know they have it or are not disclosing they have it, want funding for research that would help them and the millions of others around the world recover/prevent a killer disease. (sarcastic for those who would try to twist words)

As I said,people like Harper always considered it was just 'SINFUL' gay people getting HIV and aids.

Others are so quick to say it is a preventable disease so why waste money on them when more people die skiing ( how perverted is that?)

You are so right Catchme.

Those same people think that the 2 women who had non condom sex with Trevis Smith, should just be told "hey,if you get aids tough,its a preventable disease"

Trevis Smith, also commited adultery BTW,another big sin in PM Harpers world

[Spike22]

Proof is in the actions $111m towards aids...nuff said.

[Canadian Blue]

What did Harper say about Trevis Smith?

As I said,people like Harper always considered it was just 'SINFUL' gay people getting HIV and aids.

Others are so quick to say it is a preventable disease so why waste money on them when more people die skiing ( how perverted is that?)

Maybe in your twisted little narrow view of the world.

[imatitlover]

What did Harper say about Trevis Smith?

Nothing that I am aware of.

Why? Have you heard something?

[Canadian Blue]

I'm not sure, what does Trevis Smith have to do with this topic?

Hold on, let me get this straight PM Harper hates gays and AIDS patients, hates them so much in fact that he gives $111 million dollars to AIDS research.

That doesn't make any sense.