Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um, the blood supply was contaminated by homosexuals and intravenous drug users.
Had you bothered to watch 60 Minutes or any of the television "news magazines" or read any of the stories in print from what were then reputable journalists, you would know that.
Drug users prostitute themselves for drugs. That includes homosexual prostitution with homosexuals cruising the public bathrooms in Central Park.....you'd know that if you'd watched 60 Minutes.
The homosexuals infect the drug users, who in turn infect other drug users, and then the drug users, plus many of the homosexuals regularly sell their blood for money. That in turn contaminates the blood supply.
Then people like Ryan White -- the poster-boy for "It's not a gay disease!" ---- gets infected with contaminated blood from the Red Cross obtained from homosexuals or drug users or homosexual drug users.
That's the kind of callous disregard Liberals have for their fellow humans....."It's my right to do whatever feels good, your life be damned to hell."
Then the Red Cross does not want to test its blood, because of the cost.
You give a pint of blood for which you are paid $35-$75 dependent upon in which of the 1,539 separate economies you live, and then the Red Cross pays $150 to $300 for it, and then sells it to hospitals for $750 to $1,800 pint.
If you test the blood supply, then how will Red Cross executives get their perks?
Mounting legal pressure results in Congress enacting a law to shield and exempt the Red Cross from any legal action, in spite of their wrong-doing.
Then the Red Cross dumps the tainted blood in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.
Not ignoring...
Mircea
So, you are saying that only "liberals" are gay or drug users? Fail
and
You are basically saying that it was OK for the Republican Administration to ignore the problem because it only effected gay or drug using people, and since they believe their ilk was immune from such behaviors, they could ignore it? OMG, you're sick.
and
To hear a conservative tout CBS as a worthy news source is just laughable. You can't say "back then", but when the discussion turns to Vietnam, you go on to talk about how the media (and specifically Cronkite) aided the enemy.
You people have more flip-flops than third shift at the IHOP.
No it doesn't. AIDS is MUCH easier to contain than Ebola. Don't chare needles, don't have unprotected sex and don't go to Africa and butt rape monkeys and it can be contained.
Why didn't the people hold Reagan responsible for allowing 4 ( Army/CDC) people infected with Ebola to walk amongst us, back in 1989?
No one knew, at the time, this particular Ebola virus strain was non-fatal to humans.
Back then, it seems most people did not blame the president for anything and everything that happened within his administration or the world at large, during his watch.
Then again, back then, 24/7 political cable and radio news, the internet, social media and Super Pacs, funded by anonymous people from all over the world with unknown motivations, did not exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
