The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on July 23, 2008, 05:52:01 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3661646
Oh my.
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 03:34 AM
Original message
How Far To The Left Are You?
Take the quiz @ http://franz.org/quiz.htm
I scored 10, but I'm not going to tell you what that means. You have to take the quiz to find out.
Okay, I took the test. I scored 31.
One primitive, allegedly a "moderate," scored 2, and so now is wondering what wingnuts are.
It's a big bonfire, so only the primitives of prominence:
sfexpat2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And here you are a commie like me.
sfexpat2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. That's right. For example, you could be against farm subsidies for a range of reasons -- such as the fact they mainly benefit corporations. But I bet if you vote against them, it's scored as a right wing point.
sfexpat2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. Here they were first for family farms and now they are corporate welfare.
And when right wing politicians talk about them, they are very misleading on that point. They preach independence from government to their base and push money at corporations at every opportunity.
sfexpat2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. The "left" seems scrunched up on this scale, doesn't it?
I mean, Jesse Jackson is not exactly Mao, is he? lol
Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
50. I scored 8, but I didn't like some of their choices
Some of their choices seemed to me to be no choice at all.
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
89. This test is flawed. I scored an 8, but Stalin would likely score not too far from me as well.
The person's political views can be measured not just by examining his economic positions on economic issues but also his position on how to treat others in society, which holds ramifications on how economic positions are ultimately codified into law as well as social issues.
A left wing authoritarian may agree with me on quite a few issues facing this country, but he's more likely to impose changes through force and terror, and it would be unfair to label me as an authoritarian in the same vane if I prefer to inform people or convince them of my argument and let them decide what to do, as opposed to forcing them to do something that I want.
The loutish Brit primitive, a primitive of prominence, commented too, but the loutish Brit primitive isn't entitled to any regard of his opinion on American matters, so I didn't quote the loutish Brit primitive.
-
I scored a 25, but I think that is a tad low. oh well, it's just a quiz.
-
I scored a 32.
I forgot to check, where on the scale does that place me?
-
They had this a usmilnet. I scored a 33, IIRC.
-
I scored a 37 - three points behind President Reagan.
Cool....
Screw the commies, hippies, socialists, liberals, taxpayer tit-suckers, queers, democrats.
-
I scored a 35. :-)
-
I scored a 31
-
I'm somewhere between Bob Dole and Ronny Reagan. I agree the test is flawed. Ronny and Nancy use to call me to talk them back down to earth whenever he had a liberal thought.
(score=38)
-
I scored 39.
-
34 here but I don't think Bob Dole is more conservative than I am.
-
34 here but I don't think Bob Dole is more conservative than I am.
I think those pictures and ratings are all about liberal perceptions. I think Ronald Reagan was a true centrist and that Conservatism is a centrist political philosophy.
-
32 for me
-
32 for me
communist
-
32 for me
communist
I think it was the porn question that did me in!
-
I scored an 18.
-
How the hell did I score a 35??? :o
-
I scored an 18.
You may as well draw a pentagram on the floor and conjure up satan. :innocent:
-
33, somewhere between Jack Kemp (never heard of him) and BobDole!TM
-
I scored an 18.
You may as well draw a pentagram on the floor and conjure up satan. :innocent:
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
-
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
Come to daddy. :naughty:
-
I scored an 18.
You may as well draw a pentagram on the floor and conjure up satan. :innocent:
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
1. Generally, do you tend to trust or distrust government's ability to solve problems?
Trust
Distrust
2. Which do you trust more:
The Pentagon or
The U.S. Postal Service?
The executive branch or
The legislative branch?
The FBI or
The IRS?
The CIA or
The Peace Corps?
The Joint Chiefs or
The United Nations?
3. What about private institutions and people? Which do you trust more?
Trial Lawyers or
Doctors?
Union leaders or
Business executives?
Professional athletes or
Team owners?
4. The federal government should do more to solve the nation's problems even if it means higher taxes on (pick as many as you want.):
You
Big corporations
The wealthy
The Middle Class
Small Businesses
None
5. Where should government be cut? (pick as many as you want.)
Eliminate farm subsidies
Eliminate subsidies to the arts
Abolish public broadcasting
Cut entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.)
Cut defense spending
Reduce welfare spending
Reduce foreign aid
Keep illegal immigrants from receiving public education
Reduce environmental regulation
Cut taxes
Don't cut at all
6. Which would do more to guarantee competitive elections?
Term limits
Public Financing
7. Who was a better president?
Ronald Reagan
Franklin D. Roosevelt
8. Do you see the ideal America as an ethnic "melting pot" in which religious, cultural and ethnic distinctions are blurred, or as a nation in which ethnically diverse groups ought to coexist while retaining their cultural identity?
Melting pot
Multicultural society
9. Whose political views do you consider more extreme, those of (former) Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders or the Rev. Pat Robertson?
Elders
Robertson
Neither
10. Which would curb violent crime most?
Stricter controls on the sale of guns
Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in the commission of a crime
Both
11. In the long run, do you think we can reduce crime more by building more prisons or providing more financial assistance to rebuilding our inner cities?
Build prisons
Rebuild cities
Both
12. Even if it means cutting programs, spending must be cut to reduce the federal deficit.
Agree Disagree
13. The federal government is too big.
Agree Disagree
14. U.S. interests are more seriously at stake in Haiti than they are in Korea.
Agree Disagree
15. Gays and lesbians should be able to marry or at least be treated as married under law if they so desire.
Agree Disagree
16. The news media is dominated by liberals.
Agree Disagree
17. The religious right is a threat to our political system.
Agree Disagree
18. The federal government should include funds to make abortion services part of any standard benefits package in health care reform.
Agree Disagree
19. Deceptive political campain commercials should be banned.
Agree Disagree
20. Graphic pornography should be banned.
Agree Disagree
21. As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
Agree Disagree
22. Talk radio shows should be regulated to ensure both sides of a debate are represented, because talk radio has an unhealthy impact on the political process.
Agree Disagree
23. The breakdown of the traditional family is the most serious domestic crisis facing our society.
Agree Disagree
24. Women and racial minorities should be given preferences in hiring until we achieve true gender and racial equality in America.
Agree Disagree
25. Certain environmental problems call for government action, even if it means new programs or increased taxes.
Agree Disagree
Tell us how you answered these questions and maybe we can tell you where you went horribly wrong.
-
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
Come to daddy. :naughty:
BTW, responding to this would be horribly wrong too.
-
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
Come to daddy. :naughty:
woo hoo! I might turn conservative yet. :naughty:
-
33, somewhere between Jack Kemp (never heard of him) and BobDole!TM
Jack Kemp is an economist and he played a big part in Reagan's supply side economic policy and also he was Bob Dole's running mate in 1996.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
-
I scored an 18.
Well, I guess I'm not nearly as liberal as I thought I was.
Sorry Mia. The hats all yours now.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
What role do you see for them?
-
33, somewhere between Jack Kemp (never heard of him) and BobDole!TM
Jack Kemp is an economist and he played a big part in Reagan's supply side economic policy and also he was Bob Dole's running mate in 1996.
ah. I think I was out of the loop around that time and didn't pay attention to any political happenings. I did vote for Dole, though.
Scary... George Bush is closer to Clinton than he is to Regan on that chart.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
What role do you see for them?
Having sex with multiple partners outside of wedlock is in no way the acts of an immoral person. Unprotected sex, yeah your stupid, but not immoral.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
90%+ of all AIDS cases are a result of lifestyle -- gay sex, promiscuity and IV drugs. If we had put the money we wasted on AIDS into real diseases like MS and Cancer, then those would be much closer to being cured.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
90%+ of all AIDS cases are a result of lifestyle -- gay sex, promiscuity and IV drugs. If we had put the money we wasted on AIDS into real diseases like MS and Cancer, then those would be much closer to being cured.
AIDS is 100% preventable, but like I said, it makes you stupid for putting yourself in a situation to getting it. Not immoral. There is a big differance there.
-
Sorry Jones, AIDS is COMPLETELY avoidable. Cancer is not. They should take whatever money they spend on AIDS research, quadruple it, and add another few million on top to combat cancer.
-
Sorry Jones, AIDS is COMPLETELY avoidable. Cancer is not. They should take whatever money they spend on AIDS research, quadruple it, and add another few million on top to combat cancer.
See above.
AIDS is 100% preventable, but like I said, it makes you stupid for putting yourself in a situation to getting it. Not immoral. There is a big differance there.
Now, I gave the "conservative" answer to that question. AIDS is a relatively minor disease compaired to cancer and heart disease, and unlike the other two, is for the most part preventable (there are those cases where it gets passed on through transfusion and birth). So they should most definitely recieve more money for researching a cure then AIDS.
-
AIDS is 100% preventable, but like I said, it makes you stupid for putting yourself in a situation to getting it. Not immoral. There is a big differance there.
Yes, not having a monogamous relationship is immoral. Have I been immoral? Many, many times. Also, thousands contract AIDS from drug use. Is that immoral? Or just a "lifestyle choice"?
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
90%+ of all AIDS cases are a result of lifestyle -- gay sex, promiscuity and IV drugs. If we had put the money we wasted on AIDS into real diseases like MS and Cancer, then those would be much closer to being cured.
AIDS is 100% preventable, but like I said, it makes you stupid for putting yourself in a situation to getting it. Not immoral. There is a big differance there.
So which is not immoral? Promiscuity or IV drug use?
-
38.
Must have been the question about porn.
I think that dragged me down. The designers of the quiz are clearly libtards and don't understand how much Conservatives revere freedom of speech and expression.
-
By the way, there is no science on the face of the EARTH that says two guys, who get together as virgins, and have a monogamous relationship for the rest of their lives, are prone to AIDS. It's not just an affliction that only occurs because you're gay. HOWEVER, their "lifestyles" do have a LOT to do with it. Not the gayness, but how they act. Gay parties, orgies, etc. Hey, it's prone in the porn industry as well, you just don't hear about it because it's just those crazy heteros.
-
Even the 10% "non-preventable" cases of AIDS originated with someone being immoral and irresponsible.
I never saw sadder liberal faces than the day it was admitted to the public that AIDS is not an airborn disease and the hetrosexual population outside of Africa isn't really at risk after all.
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
-
38.
Must have been the question about porn.
I think that dragged me down. The designers of the quiz are clearly libtards and don't understand how much Conservatives revere freedom of speech and expression.
Maybe me as well. Don't be dissin' the pr0n.
-
38.
Must have been the question about porn.
I think that dragged me down. The designers of the quiz are clearly libtards and don't understand how much Conservatives revere freedom of speech and expression.
Maybe me as well. Don't be dissin' the pr0n.
It is the porn question, I changed my answer on that and went to 40.
-
I scored an 18.
You may as well draw a pentagram on the floor and conjure up satan. :innocent:
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
I think you are pretty nice and the political differences whatever they may be don`t matter much as far as being friends go.
DUmmies are incapable of having the ability to make that distinction.
Something tells me Mia that you feel more at home here then over there.:)
-
38.
Must have been the question about porn.
I think that dragged me down. The designers of the quiz are clearly libtards and don't understand how much Conservatives revere freedom of speech and expression.
Maybe me as well. Don't be dissin' the pr0n.
[youtube=425,350]zT3ah4ygklI[/youtube]
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
But they run the risk.
-
I scored an 18.
You may as well draw a pentagram on the floor and conjure up satan. :innocent:
I'm more to the right on DU and more to the left on CC.
I don't have a home. :bawl:
I think you are pretty nice and the political differences whatever they may be don`t matter much as far as being friends go.
DUmmies are incapable of having the ability to make that distinction.
Something tells me Mia that you feel more at home here then over there.:)
I do post and spend more time here than I do at DU. Plus, since the Clinton/Obama fight is over there's not any good drama going on.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
90%+ of all AIDS cases are a result of lifestyle -- gay sex, promiscuity and IV drugs. If we had put the money we wasted on AIDS into real diseases like MS and Cancer, then those would be much closer to being cured.
AIDS is 100% preventable, but like I said, it makes you stupid for putting yourself in a situation to getting it. Not immoral. There is a big differance there.
But it's not just yourself you're putting into that situation. It's everyone you sleep with, and everyone they sleep with.....
I find that immoral as well.
Leave aside the morality of sexual activity. Don't you find it immoral to be so careless knowing that others could suffer as a result? Someone who knowingly takes the risk of getting/spreading AIDS is not only stupid, they are dangerous.
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
But they run the risk.
Not because they're gay. Besides, they've been monogamous for over 20 years. So, unless one ventures off, no, they don't run the risk.
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
But they run the risk.
Not because they're gay. Besides, they've been monogamous for over 20 years. So, unless one ventures off, no, they don't run the risk.
Unless there is some new research, MUI the act of anal sex creates the possibility of AIDS. That is why it is so prevalent in the gay community.
-
Unless there is some new research, MUI the act of anal sex creates the possibility of AIDS. That is why it is so prevalent in the gay community.
Um, no. Penis + Anus does not = AIDS. Penis + Anus + HIV can sometimes = AIDS, and almost always = HIV.
I don't know what kind of faulty, bullshit science you're using, but it's laughable, to say the least.
Gay doesn't cause it. Lifestyle causes it.
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
But they run the risk.
Not because they're gay. Besides, they've been monogamous for over 20 years. So, unless one ventures off, no, they don't run the risk.
Unless there is some new research, MUI the act of anal sex creates the possibility of AIDS. That is why it is so prevalent in the gay community.
The problem within the gay community is the lack of monogamous relationships. A monogamous gay couple isn't at risk for HIV/AIDS any more than a monogamous straight couple.
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
But they run the risk.
Not because they're gay. Besides, they've been monogamous for over 20 years. So, unless one ventures off, no, they don't run the risk.
Unless there is some new research, MUI the act of anal sex creates the possibility of AIDS. That is why it is so prevalent in the gay community.
The problem within the gay community is the lack of monogamous relationships. A monogamous gay couple isn't at risk for HIV/AIDS any more than a monogamous straight couple.
The problem within the gay community is the lack of the desire to participate in and maintain monogamous relationships.
-
BTW, I have two friends who live right around the corner. They're both gay partners. They've been together 20 years. Guess what, neither has AIDS or HIV (Yes, there is a difference).
But they run the risk.
Not because they're gay. Besides, they've been monogamous for over 20 years. So, unless one ventures off, no, they don't run the risk.
Unless there is some new research, MUI the act of anal sex creates the possibility of AIDS. That is why it is so prevalent in the gay community.
The problem within the gay community is the lack of monogamous relationships. A monogamous gay couple isn't at risk for HIV/AIDS any more than a monogamous straight couple.
The problem within the gay community is the lack of the desire to participate in and maintain monogamous relationships.
Not that there aren't monogamous gay couples, I know quite a few. The problem is lack of monogamy. There are plenty of straight couples that have the same problems.
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
It's the same for straight couples that aren't monogamous and participate in anal sex. *shrug*
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
It's the same for straight couples that aren't monogamous and participate in anal sex. *shrug*
Yes. But since that's the main way gay men do it....
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
It's the same for straight couples that aren't monogamous and participate in anal sex. *shrug*
Yes. But since that's the main way gay men do it....
Hence, the higher rate of gay men with HIV/AIDS. But it's still b/c of the lack of monogamous relationships that's the main cause (at least in my eyes) and the "lifestyle" of free sex within their community.
-
36 out of 40!!
I noticed this question:
As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
WTF? AIDS doesn't threaten younger people -- it threatens immoral people.
Excuse me if I role my eyes at that one.
:whatever:
What role do you see for them?
Having sex with multiple partners outside of wedlock is in no way the acts of an immoral person. Unprotected sex, yeah your stupid, but not immoral.
Sorry, having sex with multiple partners is by definition an immoral act. It doesn't matter that a lot of us even here are quite guilty of that immorality, it is what it is. Sex with multiple partners leads to a host of problems.
It is also the sin of adultery.
-
Unless there is some new research, MUI the act of anal sex creates the possibility of AIDS. That is why it is so prevalent in the gay community.
Um, no. Penis + Anus does not = AIDS. Penis + Anus + HIV can sometimes = AIDS, and almost always = HIV.
I don't know what kind of faulty, bullshit science you're using, but it's laughable, to say the least.
Gay doesn't cause it. Lifestyle causes it.
I think you are wrong on this. Your assertion doesn't carry any more weight than my recollection.
We need some facts.
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
It's the same for straight couples that aren't monogamous and participate in anal sex. *shrug*
Almost, but not quite. Heterosexual people tend to be unfaithful with other heterosexual people (by definition). who have only been with heterosexual people and so on and so forth. It would take a homosexual in there somewhere in order for the disease to be spread, and if someone in the chain has been infected by a homo while not having hetro sex, then it's still being spread by homos. See?
Heterosexuals are at ZERO risk by definition (we aren't talking needle sharing here). It is just a fact of life. AIDS in the western world is a homosexual plague.
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
Probably Bob. ...and that may be true. However, it will never happen when HIV is absent. 'Tis my point.
-
I think you are wrong on this. Your assertion doesn't carry any more weight than my recollection.
We need some facts.
Maybe you can find some anti-homo site to back up your claims, but AIDS or HIV isn't created BY having anal sex.
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
Probably Bob. ...and that may be true. However, it will never happen when HIV is absent. 'Tis my point.
HIV can remain undetected for many, many years. Unless your buddies were monogamous from birth they run the risk.
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
It's the same for straight couples that aren't monogamous and participate in anal sex. *shrug*
Yes. But since that's the main way gay men do it....
Hence, the higher rate of gay men with HIV/AIDS. But it's still b/c of the lack of monogamous relationships that's the main cause (at least in my eyes) and the "lifestyle" of free sex within their community.
You will not change that within the male homosexual community. Men are basically programmed to seek out multiple partners. Philosophy and morality (and for straight men a general lack of women willing to engage in promiscuous sex) may override that basic programming, but it remains there just the same. In the gay community men are basically surrounded by potential partners (for the most part) seeking promiscuous sex. Add to that the self-hatred and destruction I have witnessed in that community and you have a problem.
By the way, I believe that gays created AIDS. Not intentionally, they just created the conditions for the virus to mutate into HIV/GRID/AIDS.
-
scored a 37
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
Probably Bob. ...and that may be true. However, it will never happen when HIV is absent. 'Tis my point.
HIV can remain undetected for many, many years. Unless your buddies were monogamous from birth they run the risk.
Do you have a link for that? I've always read/heard that it can remain undetected for up to 6 months.
-
HIV can remain undetected for many, many years. Unless your buddies were monogamous from birth they run the risk.
AIDS is a symptom of HIV. Not all people with HIV have AIDS. However, I agree. However, that's not the norm anymore. They can detect it now sooner. That wasn't my point. Anal sex doesn't just produce HIV.
To be honest, this whole debate sickens the hell out of me. The mere thought of this shit sends chills up my spine. ....whatever floats their boat.
-
scored a 37
:lmao:
DAYUM! I forgot what the topic was about. :lmao:
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
Probably Bob. ...and that may be true. However, it will never happen when HIV is absent. 'Tis my point.
HIV can remain undetected for many, many years. Unless your buddies were monogamous from birth they run the risk.
Do you have a link for that? I've always read/heard that it can remain undetected for up to 6 months.
If you are being regularly tested the HIV antibodies, which is what they look for to determine if you have an infection of any sort, will likely be detected between 3 weeks and six months. If you are not having regular tests, you may not be detected until you start showing signs of oppurtunistic diseases that would trigger a check for AIDS.
-
scored a 37
:lmao:
DAYUM! I forgot what the topic was about. :lmao:
How many gay relationships you have had. 40 makes it 100% probability you will get AIDS.
-
I remember a long time ago on TOS that one of the posters (with a medical background - dang, I can't remember his name!) said that the tissue in the uh...anus....has something to do with the transmission of HIV. I'll have to see if I can find anything online. Basically the explanation was that because of the tissue structure and the way it allows viruses to enter into the body, that it was riskier.
(Oh my. I googled it. Go look for yourself.)
Probably Bob. ...and that may be true. However, it will never happen when HIV is absent. 'Tis my point.
HIV can remain undetected for many, many years. Unless your buddies were monogamous from birth they run the risk.
Do you have a link for that? I've always read/heard that it can remain undetected for up to 6 months.
If you are being regularly tested the HIV antibodies, which is what they look for to determine if you have an infection of any sort, will likely be detected between 3 weeks and six months. If you are not having regular tests, you may not be detected until you start showing signs of oppurtunistic diseases that would trigger a check for AIDS.
Thank you for your clarification. I'm a proponent of when you have a yearly physical to be tested for all sexually transmitted diseases as well, regardless of if there's a new sex partner.
-
How many gay relationships you have had. 40 makes it 100% probability you will get AIDS.
None. Are you speaking from experience or something? Why would you ask some stupid shit like that of me? I'm married, second time, to ANOTHER woman. You calling me gay, ****er? (http://usmilnet.com/smf/Smileys/default/nunchuk.gif)
-
By the way, I believe that gays created AIDS. Not intentionally, they just created the conditions for the virus to mutate into HIV/GRID/AIDS.
I'm thinking, from everything I've read, it was a Canadian flight attendant(Dude) who ****ed a monkey. ...or some shit like that.
-
By the way, I believe that gays created AIDS. Not intentionally, they just created the conditions for the virus to mutate into HIV/GRID/AIDS.
I'm thinking, from everything I've read, it was a Canadian flight attendant(Dude) who ****ed a monkey. ...or some shit like that.
Leave it to those monkey-****in' Canucks. :hammer: :-)
33 btw. :usflag:
-
38 on the quiz, although some of my views that the quiz score as "liberal" are actually more "libertarian" on my part.
Oh, and "0" on the gay thing. There will be no puffmonkey action in the Tantal house.
-
Leave it to those monkey-****in' Canucks. :hammer: :-)
33 btw. :usflag:
[youtube=425,350]6uh5KbIOmQg[/youtube]
-
How many gay relationships you have had. 40 makes it 100% probability you will get AIDS.
None. Are you speaking from experience or something? Why would you ask some stupid shit like that of me? I'm married, second time, to ANOTHER woman. You calling me gay, ****er? (http://usmilnet.com/smf/Smileys/default/nunchuk.gif)
I was cross-referencing the OP with the thread drift.
Dude, take a chill pill.
-
38 on the quiz, although some of my views that the quiz score as "liberal" are actually more "libertarian" on my part.
Oh, and "0" on the gay thing. There will be no puffmonkey action in the Tantal house.
The porno question gotcha, didn't it?
-
How many gay relationships you have had. 40 makes it 100% probability you will get AIDS.
None. Are you speaking from experience or something? Why would you ask some stupid shit like that of me? I'm married, second time, to ANOTHER woman. You calling me gay, ****er? (http://usmilnet.com/smf/Smileys/default/nunchuk.gif)
I was cross-referencing the OP with the thread drift.
Dude, take a chill pill.
Dude, I was actually laughing when I posted that. You don't know me too well, do ya?
-
How many gay relationships you have had. 40 makes it 100% probability you will get AIDS.
None. Are you speaking from experience or something? Why would you ask some stupid shit like that of me? I'm married, second time, to ANOTHER woman. You calling me gay, ****er? (http://usmilnet.com/smf/Smileys/default/nunchuk.gif)
I was cross-referencing the OP with the thread drift.
Dude, take a chill pill.
Dude, I was actually laughing when I posted that. You don't know me too well, do ya?
OK, *I'll* take the chill pill!!!
I guess my "no ghey smilies" policy inhibits my ability to read them when people put them up.
:)
-
35 for me.
-
WTF, I only got 29! :( What'd I get wrong?
-
I ended up with a 28 on this one
-
35 :cheersmate:
This question threw me for a loop. What kind of DUmmy thought this one up?
21. As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
-
35 :cheersmate:
This question threw me for a loop. What kind of DUmmy thought this one up?
21. As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
A few billboards along the highway ought to the trick....."DON't FEED THE QUEERS"
-
35 :cheersmate:
This question threw me for a loop. What kind of DUmmy thought this one up?
21. As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.
A few billboards along the highway ought to the trick....."DON't FEED THE QUEERS"
After reading the entire thread, after I posted, I see that this question enraged others. Kinda makes me feel normal.
-
28 for me. I must admit there are some Conservative touchstones I regard as unworkable and unrealistic to the point of silliness, I don't have a problem with porn, and at the core of some bloated Liberal social programs there are actually some valid ideas (e.g. I don't see how to effect rebuilding the family without investment in cities, I just don't like the handout way it's been done).
-
I took it when it was run through the MilNet forum. Scored a 39 out of 40.
Still need to find that last point of Liberal weakness within me and exorcise it, so that I might obtain to Conservative Enlightenment as the great Ronaldus Magnus did.
:bow:
-
I came in at a 36. :evillaugh:
-
38 on the quiz, although some of my views that the quiz score as "liberal" are actually more "libertarian" on my part.
Oh, and "0" on the gay thing. There will be no puffmonkey action in the Tantal house.
The porno question gotcha, didn't it?
Yep. I personally don't view it, but I'm extremely skeptical of the government determining what adults can and cannot watch. First it's porn, then maybe violence, then politically incorrect stuff.....the whole "slippery slope" thing. In a perfect world, all pornography studios would simply go out of business due to a lack of demand for their product.