I am not holding this against Huckabee because 1992 was a LONG time ago , and people are better informed about aids and how it is transmitted etc . I am not a Huckabee supporter but I would venture to guess in 1992 many americans of all political persuasions would have held irrational fears about people living with aids .

No, he's right. I can't point you to one single comprehensive study but if you conduct a little bit of research you can piece it all together. They run high risks of alcoholism, depression, suicide, and drugs (methamphetamines appear to be the drug of choice), compared to heterosexual males.

 

Granted this is all statistical, which I am not a fan of. I can't even begin to pinpoint the causes of these habits.

 

 

Having said that, quarantine is not an irrational or even unethical practice in many instances. However, what Huckabee seemed to be promoting is not something a free society does under the given circumstances.

Penguino, I've seen you make reference to your dislike of statistical findings in the past. And, I'm curious what your reasons for it are? Is it just general skepticism about the findings of statistical studies until you can read the study to determine if there were things like exogenous variation, tests for significance and sound methodology? Or, is it something more philosophical about statistical studies in general? If it's the former, I can agree with you to a point and say that we all need to be better consumers of research that is presented. However, if it's the latter, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.

I would post a YouTube clip from "A Handmaid's Tale" here with respect to Huckabee wanting to turn the US into the Republic of Gilead, but none of the clips are either relevant or SFW.

Well, go ahead and find flaws with my presentation (I don't care), but the actual message is very consistent with studies that have been conducted in the past.

Unruffle your feathers. The actual message was incomprehensible. That's why I asked you to clarify.

 

I'm surprised you don't know how conversation works. One person makes a statement, another responds. Sometimes people need clarification, so they ask for it. That's what I did.

The way we treat homosexuals in this society is certainly barbaric, but it is an act of equal absurdity to be so consequently politically correct that we ignore the inherent problems with the gay culture.

 

What, specifically, are these inherent problems?

I still don't see them. You are saying there are problems, yes, but I don't see how they are "inherent". I see them as products of a society that forces them to the fringes and makes them hate themselves. I absolutely do not see how that has to do with any inherent problems.

I still don't see them. You are saying there are problems, yes, but I don't see how they are "inherent". I see them as products of a society that forces them to the fringes and makes them hate themselves. I absolutely do not see how that has to do with any inherent problems.

Please read the the document. It explains everything. Like any culture, there are embedded destructive practices that are not correlated directly to society's "mishandling" of them.

 

I could read all 270 pages of that, or you could explain to me what it's findings are.

 

I still don't see how you can honestly believe that just by being gay, they are inherently more prone to drug abuse.

If you are black, you inherently love fried chicken and watermelon.

I would post a YouTube clip from "A Handmaid's Tale" here with respect to Huckabee wanting to turn the US into the Republic of Gilead, but none of the clips are either relevant or SFW.

 

Except that Huckabee would be a "Baptist Guerrilla" and thus on the outside of the Republic. :cool

 

I would want to see the entire series of questions and responses before making any judgments.

Say what you want about "not believing" but until you show willingness to actual delve into the issue, you sound rather naive.

 

The point of the findings is that while the gay community is "underground" and inaccessible, the statistical relationship between drug use, HIV, and homosexuals/bi males is not directly attached to social stigmas.

 

Drugs are not always used in instances of futility or unhappiness due to lack of acceptance (social stigmas). The study makes explicit note of saying that gay communities are statistically more likely to use stimulants to heighten the sensation of intercourse, when placed against heterosexual males. In context, this has been used in gay populations to both reduce intimacy problems and increase orgasms. The point is implicity made that drug use is in most instances a cornerstone to gay culture. There are no clear answers, as is this is a somewhat unreachable community for study, but nowhere is a connection made between social stigmas and drug use. This could be the case for certain youths (my own estimation), but here the study is claiming there are more issues with the culture inherently we can't so directly account for.

 

 

 

Fox's comment his highly perfunctory and is missing the statistical points made by this study. Nothing here is based upon stereotype, but ethnographic study.

 

So I should read all 270 pages. At the risk of sounding naive, I'll pass.

Say what you want about "not believing" but until you show willingness to actual delve into the issue, you sound rather naive.

 

The point of the findings is that while the gay community is "underground" and inaccessible, the statistical relationship between drug use, HIV, and homosexuals/bi males is not directly attached to social stigmas.

 

Drugs are not always used in instances of futility or unhappiness due to lack of acceptance (social stigmas). The study makes explicit note of saying that gay communities are statistically more likely to use stimulants to heighten the sensation of intercourse, when placed against heterosexual males. In context, this has been used in gay populations to both reduce intimacy problems and increase orgasms. The point is implicity made that drug use is in most instances a cornerstone to gay culture. There are no clear answers, as is this is a somewhat unreachable community for study, but nowhere is a connection made between social stigmas and drug use. This could be the case for certain youths (my own estimation), but here the study is claiming there are more issues with the culture inherently we can't so directly account for.

 

 

 

Fox's comment his highly perfunctory and is missing the statistical points made by this study. Nothing here is based upon stereotype, but ethnographic study.

 

So I should read all 270 pages. At the risk of sounding naive, I'll pass.

Who needs books!

Say what you want about "not believing" but until you show willingness to actual delve into the issue, you sound rather naive.

 

The point of the findings is that while the gay community is "underground" and inaccessible, the statistical relationship between drug use, HIV, and homosexuals/bi males is not directly attached to social stigmas.

 

Drugs are not always used in instances of futility or unhappiness due to lack of acceptance (social stigmas). The study makes explicit note of saying that gay communities are statistically more likely to use stimulants to heighten the sensation of intercourse, when placed against heterosexual males. In context, this has been used in gay populations to both reduce intimacy problems and increase orgasms. The point is implicity made that drug use is in most instances a cornerstone to gay culture. There are no clear answers, as is this is a somewhat unreachable community for study, but nowhere is a connection made between social stigmas and drug use. This could be the case for certain youths (my own estimation), but here the study is claiming there are more issues with the culture inherently we can't so directly account for.

 

 

 

Fox's comment his highly perfunctory and is missing the statistical points made by this study. Nothing here is based upon stereotype, but ethnographic study.

 

So I should read all 270 pages. At the risk of sounding naive, I'll pass.

Who needs 270 page pdf documents.

Let's just get rid of schools altogether. That will save BILLIONS!

Some follow up:

Top Republican White House hopefuls were forced on the defensive over their pasts Sunday with Mike Huckabee grilled about his 1992 belief that AIDS patients should be quarantined.

 

New attention is being paid to Huckabee's record as the wisecracking, avuncular Baptist pastor surges in the polls, less than a month before Iowa kicks off the party nominating contests.

 

National Republican frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani meanwhile refused to renounce his lucrative consulting business despite questions over a potential conflict of interest with some of the foreign states it has represented.

 

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, former Arkansas governor Huckabee said he would probably "say things a little differently" now than when he was asked his views on AIDS 15 years ago.

 

"But what I'm not going to do is to go back and now try to change every story I've ever had. I'm going to simply say that that was exactly what I said. I don't run from it, don't recant from it," he said.

 

As a Senate candidate in 1992, Huckabee told The Associated Press that if the US government wanted to deal effectively with AIDS, "we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

 

The Baptist minister was also quoted as calling homosexuality "an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle."

 

Speaking on Fox, Huckabee insisted that there were legitimate concerns in the early 1990s about whether AIDS could be spread by casual contact, despite US government advice as early as 1985 that this was impossible.

 

Huckabee was also grilled over his ignorance, more than 24 hours after it was released, of a new US intelligence appraisal last week that stated Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

 

The Republican candidate had said he was too busy on the campaign trail to learn immediately of Tuesday's National Intelligence Estimate, a change of heart by the spy agencies that contradicted bellicose US talk on Iran.

 

"It shows more than anything not what I didn't know, but what our own intelligence community didn't know," Huckabee said.

 

A Newsweek survey Friday suggested that Huckabee has opened up a gaping lead in Iowa over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, of 39 percent to 17 percent, ahead of the state's nominating caucuses on January 3.

 

Romney delivered a landmark speech on Thursday, asking Americans not to reject him over his Mormon religion, partly motivated by Huckabee's strong support among crucial evangelical voters in Iowa.

 

The candidates' personal and political beliefs will get another airing on Wednesday at the last Republican debate before the Iowa caucuses.

 

While leading in national Republican polls, Giuliani trails badly in Iowa and the other early-voting state of New Hampshire, but is banking on carrying bigger states such as New York, Florida and California.

 

The former New York mayor, interviewed on NBC television Sunday, faced new questions over his private-sector interests through his stewardship of the security consultancy Giuliani Partners.

 

Its clients have included the Gulf country of Qatar, which is a US ally but has been accused of sheltering Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the Al-Qaeda figure suspected of masterminding the September 11 attacks of 2001.

 

Citing confidentiality agreements, Giuliani refused to release a list of the firm's clients, and said he was no longer involved in its day-to-day affairs.

 

Asked if he would sever all ties to the consultancy, he said: "No, I'm an owner."

 

Giuliani said that in due course, he would provide the legally required financial disclosure of his involvement with the firm "and then we will take a look and see should we go beyond that."

 

Giuliani was also questioned anew about his ties to former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who was formally indicted last month on charges of tax evasion and corruption.

 

And he insisted that he acted on the recommendations of New York police, following accusations that he hid thousands of dollars in travel and security costs during an extra-marital affair with his now wife.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

Well, clearly Huckabee still believes at least some of what he said in 1992. His comment says a lot to me in the above article.

If I'm Huckabee, I run from these statements. Just say it was a different time and he was a different person. Now he knows much more and isn't as rigid on his view. Who exactly is going to be mad at you over this? It isn't as bad as the flip flopping Rudy and Romney have been doing.

 

He is pretty much saying he wasn't wrong then and isn't saying he thinks that is wrong now. His whole thing is that he is a compassionate conservative.

 

Of course this could end up being the right approach. In theory, he could end up winning blue collar social conservatives who are also economically liberal, ie your common union based worker. That could lead him to do well in a state like Pennsylvania.

I am not holding this against Huckabee because 1992 was a LONG time ago , and people are better informed about aids and how it is transmitted etc . I am not a Huckabee supporter but I would venture to guess in 1992 many americans of all political persuasions would have held irrational fears about people living with aids .

Exactly. Back in 1992 people still believed you could get aids just by shaking someone's hand. I really don't see why people are throwing their hands up in the air over this.

This is more telling as to why I don't like any of the Republican candidates outside of Paul. Rudy and McCain seem like weasles to me and Huckabee is just too evangelical.

 

Of course, Paul doesn't have a chance in hell for this election so I'll probably just end up not voting.

That's the American spirit!

This is more telling as to why I don't like any of the Republican candidates outside of Paul. Rudy and McCain seem like weasles to me and Huckabee is just too evangelical.

 

Of course, Paul doesn't have a chance in hell for this election so I'll probably just end up not voting.

J/C, what about McCain makes you think he is a 'weasel'?

This is more telling as to why I don't like any of the Republican candidates outside of Paul. Rudy and McCain seem like weasles to me and Huckabee is just too evangelical.

 

Of course, Paul doesn't have a chance in hell for this election so I'll probably just end up not voting.

J/C, what about McCain makes you think he is a 'weasel'?

 

I'm no fan of some of McCain's policies, but the guy is anything but a weasel even if he has moved somewhat away from his maverick position. As a dem, I'm very happy he hasn't gotten in front.

He's a weasle cause you know, he uh, risked his life serving his country in a war.

Of course, Paul doesn't have a chance in hell for this election so I'll probably just end up not voting.

Exactly the behavior the founding fathers wanted. Putting a man over the system.