Wrong.....most of them have been from the new testament. This is one of my favorites:
Mark 16:
…17"These signs will accompany them that believe: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
Tell that to Magic Johnson. And according to the CDC (the latest I could find was 2010) Heterosexual Unprotected Sex + IV use = 33% of HIV cases. that's 1 in 3.
Basic Statistics | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC | HIV/AIDS | CDC
Magic Johnson is a liar, and so is the Center for Disease Control.
STATEMENT ON CDC FRAUD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE,
MAY 8, 1996
HEARING ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AIDS RESEARCH BUDGET
Outline and References from Statement by Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley.
Summary: The nature and extent of the AIDS epidemic has been misprepresented to the public by federal agencies, with the acquiescence of much of the media. The legislature should do what it can to encourage support for research that provides an independent review of the nature of the epidemic and the actual risk that AIDS presents to the public in general.
A. The Wall Street Journal front page article of Wednesday, May 1, 1996
Title: Health Hazard: AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks ---Most Heterosexuals Face Scant Peril but Receive Large Portion of Funds ---- Less Goes to Gays, Addicts
By Amanda BENNETT and Anita SHARPE
In the summer of 1987, federal health officials made the fateful decision to bombard the public with a terrifying message: Anyone could get AIDS.
While the message was technically true, it was also highly misleading. Everyone certainly faced some danger, but for most heterosexuals, the risk from a single act of sex was smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning. In the U.S., the disease was, and remains, largely the scourge of gay men, intravenous drug users, their sex partners and their newborn children.
Nonetheless, a bold public-relations campaign promised to sound a general alarm about AIDS, lifting it from a homosexual concern to a national obsession and accelerating efforts to eradicate the disease. For people devoted to public health, it seemed the best course to take.
But nine years after the America Responds to AIDS campaign first hit the airwaves, many scientists and doctors are raising new questions. Increasingly, they worry that the everyone-gets-AIDS message -- still trumpeted not only by government agencies but by celebrities and the media -- is more than just dishonest: It is also having a perverse, potentially deadly effect on funding for AIDS prevention.
* * *
After considerable soul-searching and debate, officials fixed on a dramatic approach they believed would do the most good in the long run: a high-powered PR and advertising campaign to spread a sobering yet politically palatable message nationwide.
In subsequent meetings in the summer and fall of 1987, the CDC [U.S. Government Centers for Disease Control, headquartered in Atlanta] team developed the idea of filming people with AIDS and building a series of public-service announcements around what they had to say. Subjects wouldn't be identified as gay, and the dangers of intravenous drug use would get little attention.
* * *
Meanwhile, the CDC itself was producing research that made clear that heterosexual fears were exaggerated. And some CDC scientists, including then- epidemiology chief Harold W. Jaffe, publicly railed against the everyone-gets- AIDS message and urged that assistance be targeted to those who most needed it. But his opinion, along with the internal research on which it was based, was typically drowned out by the countervailing mass-media campaign.
Fear of AIDS spread -- and remains. Gallup surveys show that by 1988, 69% of Americans thought AIDS "was likely" to become an epidemic, compared with 51% a year earlier, before the PR campaign got in full swing. By 1991, most thought that married people who had an occasional affair would eventually face substantial risk.
Yet, as CDC officials well knew, many of the images presented by the anti- AIDS campaign created a misleading impression about who was likely to get the disease. The blonde, middle-aged woman in the CDC's brochure was an intravenous drug user who had shared AIDS-tainted needles, although she wasn't identified as such in the brochure. The Baptist minister's son who said, "If I can get AIDS, anyone can," was gay, although the public-service announcement featuring him didn't say so.
* * *
Research continued to show that AIDS among heterosexuals had largely settled into an inner-city nexus, a world bounded by poverty and poor health care and beset by rampant drug use. AIDS was also on the rise in some poor rural communities. Yet government ads typically didn't address the heterosexual group at greatest risk, a group that a CDC researcher would laterdefine as "generally young, minority, indigent women who use 'crack' cocaine, have multiple sex partners, trade sex for 'crack' or other drugs or money, and have [other sexually transmitted diseases] such as syphilis and herpes."
Tell that to Magic Johnson. And according to the CDC (the latest I could find was 2010) Heterosexual Unprotected Sex + IV use = 33% of HIV cases. that's 1 in 3.
Basic Statistics | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC | HIV/AIDS | CDC
Magic Johnson is a liar, and so is the Center for Disease Control.
STATEMENT ON CDC FRAUD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE,
MAY 8, 1996
HEARING ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AIDS RESEARCH BUDGET
Outline and References from Statement by Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley.
Summary: The nature and extent of the AIDS epidemic has been misprepresented to the public by federal agencies, with the acquiescence of much of the media. The legislature should do what it can to encourage support for research that provides an independent review of the nature of the epidemic and the actual risk that AIDS presents to the public in general.
A. The Wall Street Journal front page article of Wednesday, May 1, 1996
Title: Health Hazard: AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks ---Most Heterosexuals Face Scant Peril but Receive Large Portion of Funds ---- Less Goes to Gays, Addicts
By Amanda BENNETT and Anita SHARPE
In the summer of 1987, federal health officials made the fateful decision to bombard the public with a terrifying message: Anyone could get AIDS.
While the message was technically true, it was also highly misleading. Everyone certainly faced some danger, but for most heterosexuals, the risk from a single act of sex was smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning. In the U.S., the disease was, and remains, largely the scourge of gay men, intravenous drug users, their sex partners and their newborn children.
Nonetheless, a bold public-relations campaign promised to sound a general alarm about AIDS, lifting it from a homosexual concern to a national obsession and accelerating efforts to eradicate the disease. For people devoted to public health, it seemed the best course to take.
But nine years after the America Responds to AIDS campaign first hit the airwaves, many scientists and doctors are raising new questions. Increasingly, they worry that the everyone-gets-AIDS message -- still trumpeted not only by government agencies but by celebrities and the media -- is more than just dishonest: It is also having a perverse, potentially deadly effect on funding for AIDS prevention.
* * *
After considerable soul-searching and debate, officials fixed on a dramatic approach they believed would do the most good in the long run: a high-powered PR and advertising campaign to spread a sobering yet politically palatable message nationwide.
In subsequent meetings in the summer and fall of 1987, the CDC [U.S. Government Centers for Disease Control, headquartered in Atlanta] team developed the idea of filming people with AIDS and building a series of public-service announcements around what they had to say. Subjects wouldn't be identified as gay, and the dangers of intravenous drug use would get little attention.
* * *
Meanwhile, the CDC itself was producing research that made clear that heterosexual fears were exaggerated. And some CDC scientists, including then- epidemiology chief Harold W. Jaffe, publicly railed against the everyone-gets- AIDS message and urged that assistance be targeted to those who most needed it. But his opinion, along with the internal research on which it was based, was typically drowned out by the countervailing mass-media campaign.
Fear of AIDS spread -- and remains. Gallup surveys show that by 1988, 69% of Americans thought AIDS "was likely" to become an epidemic, compared with 51% a year earlier, before the PR campaign got in full swing. By 1991, most thought that married people who had an occasional affair would eventually face substantial risk.
Yet, as CDC officials well knew, many of the images presented by the anti- AIDS campaign created a misleading impression about who was likely to get the disease. The blonde, middle-aged woman in the CDC's brochure was an intravenous drug user who had shared AIDS-tainted needles, although she wasn't identified as such in the brochure. The Baptist minister's son who said, "If I can get AIDS, anyone can," was gay, although the public-service announcement featuring him didn't say so.
* * *
Research continued to show that AIDS among heterosexuals had largely settled into an inner-city nexus, a world bounded by poverty and poor health care and beset by rampant drug use. AIDS was also on the rise in some poor rural communities. Yet government ads typically didn't address the heterosexual group at greatest risk, a group that a CDC researcher would laterdefine as "generally young, minority, indigent women who use 'crack' cocaine, have multiple sex partners, trade sex for 'crack' or other drugs or money, and have [other sexually transmitted diseases] such as syphilis and herpes."
Wrong.....most of them have been from the new testament. This is one of my favorites:
Mark 16:
…17"These signs will accompany them that believe: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
Where are the quotes about homosexuals?
Those people are 100% gay. Some people, like the homophobes who say its a choice, say its a choice for them. They just don't like people who choose gay because their bible, family and community say its bad wrong or sinful. They fight the urge.
That's because we don't follow the bible. You can't toss out every word of the old testament if you are a Christian unless you thing God made a mistake writing his first book.
America would be dumb letting too many Muslims in. I'd say take none. Of course Muslims would love to make this a Muslim majority nation. Wouldn't you love Iraq to become a Christian nation if you were a Chaldean living in Iraq?
Bripat doesn't have a big enough dick to cause tearing or bleeding.
Tell that to Magic Johnson. And according to the CDC (the latest I could find was 2010) Heterosexual Unprotected Sex + IV use = 33% of HIV cases. that's 1 in 3.
Basic Statistics | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC | HIV/AIDS | CDC
So did bush after 9-11. I remember having a problem with it. I wondered why we would do that. I know there are reasons but not any good ones.
He said it should disqualify you. Don't you fools see each Republicans job is to say something that divides the masses? Ben token carson is just there to trash blacks and Muslims. Trumps got Mexicans. Huckabee got gays. Walker had unions. Fiorino is there to make women feel included. Who's next?
He never said that now I don't expect a hyper partisan moron like you to be truthful about what Carson or any other Republican says. But the only place it says Ben Carson says Muslims should be disqualified from being or running for President is in the article title linked by the OP next time try reading more than the headline.
