(no subject)
Jun. 7th, 2004 11:34 amSaddam Hussein must have shed a few tears this weekend for the death of his old friend Reagan.
It was Reagan, after all, who helped him secure power in Iraq.
It was Reagan, after all, who helped him secure power in Iraq.
no subject
on 2004-06-07 07:07 am (UTC)Does that mean we should be wary of Arnie?
no subject
on 2004-06-07 07:39 am (UTC)no subject
on 2004-06-07 07:45 am (UTC)Now this thread is very messy! There is nothing that irks me more than a messy thread :P hahaha
no subject
on 2004-06-07 08:23 am (UTC):)
no subject
on 2004-06-07 09:24 am (UTC)Anyway, I guess you didn't like what I had to say about AIDS since you never responded to that comment. Is that the one you want me to delete? Even if I did I couldn't reinstate the accidental one that was deleted on this thread.
Does any of this make sense?
no subject
on 2004-06-07 09:26 am (UTC)You know, Yahoo is screwing up today... i've been getting comments really late. That one hasn't arrived for me yet.
no subject
on 2004-06-07 09:30 am (UTC)|
|
|
|
|
|
V
no subject
on 2004-06-07 07:29 am (UTC)The whole AIDS thing has been hotly debated. No doubt that the appearance of the virus had more to do with the curtailing of sexual promiscuity than anything the republicans ever did. There is a circle that believes that it was in fact them who allowed for the virus to be introduced into the public. I have never seen any evidence to suggest this is true. It is purely conjecture. That said I could imagine these "people" doing something like that. It is not inconsistent with their other abhorrent behavior, but if it is such a deep and truly evil conspiracy then I personally am at a loss for words (and to know me, is to know that that is a rarity).
Until evidence is presented in front of my face to prove such a thing I will remain skeptical. The truth remains that many right wingers in the US were overjoyed at the appearance of the virus. It is suspicious that the group who first contracted it was reviled by the republican party. To simply say that it spread throughout a certain community first because there is far more blood being exchanged in anal sex is naive at best. There are just as many instances of hetero anal intercourse as homosexual...
...but to take this to its logical conclusion is to be face to face with evil in its purest form.... I rather not believe that just yet...
Time to believe
on 2004-06-07 09:57 am (UTC)I didn't know him well, but I don't think he was lying. I'm good at reading people.
Re: Time to believe
on 2004-06-07 12:21 pm (UTC)Re: Time to believe
on 2004-06-08 10:41 am (UTC)Re: Time to believe
on 2004-06-09 01:45 am (UTC)Re: Time to believe
on 2004-06-08 12:17 pm (UTC)(actually if I really was.... I would.)
Re: Time to believe
on 2004-06-09 01:49 am (UTC)Re: Time to believe
on 2004-06-09 11:23 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2004-06-07 12:12 pm (UTC)But it's true that they loved it's appearance, which makes their whole Christian stance even more abbhorant.
no subject
on 2004-06-08 07:59 am (UTC)Because some right wing nutters have that stance, does not make it the Christian stance.
no subject
on 2004-06-08 08:02 am (UTC)