Mr. Harper wasn't the rude one
CAGERATTLER @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:35 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
AIDS isn't a big issue in Canada so for the Conservative or the Liberals to fund this conference, that's honourable.
I don't think Chretien or Harper should have to attend.
Should Harper attend every cancer related conference or event? Most would say "No" yet cancer kills thousands more in Canada per year than AIDS does.
Just because a bunch of has-been actors and former politicians show, doesn't mean Harper OR Chretien has to oblige.
It's just not that big of an issue in Canada. Period.
I don't think Chretien or Harper should have to attend.
Should Harper attend every cancer related conference or event? Most would say "No" yet cancer kills thousands more in Canada per year than AIDS does.
Just because a bunch of has-been actors and former politicians show, doesn't mean Harper OR Chretien has to oblige.
It's just not that big of an issue in Canada. Period.
No but you know what would be nice? If he could just make one fucking trip to C.F.B. Trenton and be onhand for just one of our returning war hero's coming home in a coffin!!!
That would be real nice!!!
HINT: Both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien made that trip!!!!
OnTheIce @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:36 am
CAGERATTLER CAGERATTLER:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
AIDS isn't a big issue in Canada so for the Conservative or the Liberals to fund this conference, that's honourable.
I don't think Chretien or Harper should have to attend.
Should Harper attend every cancer related conference or event? Most would say "No" yet cancer kills thousands more in Canada per year than AIDS does.
Just because a bunch of has-been actors and former politicians show, doesn't mean Harper OR Chretien has to oblige.
It's just not that big of an issue in Canada. Period.
I don't think Chretien or Harper should have to attend.
Should Harper attend every cancer related conference or event? Most would say "No" yet cancer kills thousands more in Canada per year than AIDS does.
Just because a bunch of has-been actors and former politicians show, doesn't mean Harper OR Chretien has to oblige.
It's just not that big of an issue in Canada. Period.
No but you know what would be nice? If he could just make one fucking trip to C.F.B. Trenton and be onhand for just one of our returning war hero's coming home in a coffin!!!
That would be real nice!!!
HINT: Both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien made that trip!!!!
It was nice that they showed up, considering they virtually ignored the fact that they had soldiers fighting and did their best to de-fund the military as much as possible.
How many surprise visits did Martin and Chretien make to a war zone?
Harper can't be everywhere at the same time. Same goes for past PM's. Get over it.
P.S. Nothing like a LIEberal to go completely off topic. This topic is about AIDS and HIV. If you're unable to stay on topic, go away.
bootlegga @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:03 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I disagree Boots.
I don't know if you watched CTV's QP a few Sundays ago. One of the main organisers, (his name escapes me) was on one of the 'round tables' with Jane Taber doing the jousting.
This chap insisted that Harper should go to the conference. He was asked if it was likely that Harper would be booed and generally treated badly.
This chap admitted he would be booed and "have to answer for his stand on 'family values' in front of the world."
The discussion then became 'why would anybody go to a conference knowing they would be booed and treated badly?'
These self appointed bullies are just pissed off they didn't get dump on Harper.
Harper did the right thing and I agree with Rex Murphy (I nearly always do!)
that AIDS is really the plague celebs love to back. Way more people in Canada die from cancer and heart disease.
The PM decides where he goes, not special interest groups and you can't get much more politicised a group than the AIDS activists.
I think it was much more appropriate to send Tony Clement there, who cares if Bill Gates or Clinton was there. The whole thing was a bloody celeb circus from the bits I saw and the venom displayed against Harper shows that he was wise not to go and get shouted down by these holier-than-thou professional activists.
Just my view!
I don't know if you watched CTV's QP a few Sundays ago. One of the main organisers, (his name escapes me) was on one of the 'round tables' with Jane Taber doing the jousting.
This chap insisted that Harper should go to the conference. He was asked if it was likely that Harper would be booed and generally treated badly.
This chap admitted he would be booed and "have to answer for his stand on 'family values' in front of the world."
The discussion then became 'why would anybody go to a conference knowing they would be booed and treated badly?'
These self appointed bullies are just pissed off they didn't get dump on Harper.
Harper did the right thing and I agree with Rex Murphy (I nearly always do!)
that AIDS is really the plague celebs love to back. Way more people in Canada die from cancer and heart disease.
The PM decides where he goes, not special interest groups and you can't get much more politicised a group than the AIDS activists.
I think it was much more appropriate to send Tony Clement there, who cares if Bill Gates or Clinton was there. The whole thing was a bloody celeb circus from the bits I saw and the venom displayed against Harper shows that he was wise not to go and get shouted down by these holier-than-thou professional activists.
Just my view!
That's your pregoative to disagree. Thank god we live in Canada and have the right to discuss this instead of being locked up in a dark cell and executed like in some countries...but I digress!
Anyways, I agree that Harper might have had to endure some BS, but you know what, that goes with the job. Is every single moment of your job everyday a good and happy thing? Mine doesn't, and I know I have days when I'd love to be able to order up a private jet and whisk myself off to the Arctic to hide from my bosses, but I don't have that luxury.
The only reason Harper should have gone (and Chretien in 1996), was to welcome the foreign leaders who planned on attending. By ducking out, he made Canada look bad. The last thing we need is more bad press in the 3rd world.
If Harper is so thin-sknned he can't take a few minutes of booing, then he does not belong in the PM's office. What's next, banning unflattering press articles and editorials?
Just my view...
Wullu @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:57 am
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
I'm intrigued by that guy's blog post. Yet, when he refers to how "HIV tests have stabilized", they only dropped in 2005. He's trying to use a one-year drop to forecast indefinitely. Not wise.
Guess I disagree with how you see those numbers. He states that the numbers are very stable over an eight year period, not that they have dropped.
$1:
1. Postive HIV tests have stabilized
1998 2341
1999 2231
2000 2113
2001 2178
2002 2494
2003 2497
2004 2535
2005 2483
1998 2341
1999 2231
2000 2113
2001 2178
2002 2494
2003 2497
2004 2535
2005 2483
SireJoe @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:10 pm
Hey, does anyone know, those numbers arent NEW cases every year are they? Like every year they are adding another 2400 people to the HIV list? Or is it like each year they are adding another like 20-100 people?
Wullu @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:19 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
Hey, does anyone know, those numbers arent NEW cases every year are they? Like every year they are adding another 2400 people to the HIV list? Or is it like each year they are adding another like 20-100 people?
By the way it is presented I would say that is 2000 odd new cases each year.
SireJoe @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:22 pm
Huh... With all we know about the disease its hard to imagine those numbers keep going up or even staying anywhere near that high...
We need the condom police to start breaking down doors here. That should help slow things down a bit. Any takers on that job?
Wullu @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:41 pm
Probably a combination of the reduced media coverage in the last decade and the invincibility of youth Sire.
When the whole AIDs story broke, you could count on a news story virtually every night for the better part of two years. They scared the bejesus out of everyone and the new cases dropped through the floor. The invincibility of youth? That is as old as time itself me thinks.
Also, of course, people know now that HIV is very treatable and some are always going to be willing to take the risk. Look at all us smokers. 
SireJoe @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm
True enough at that. There are definately things out there that I will never comprehend, such as smoking 
Hopefully with more news coverage and more education out there things will turn around. I know alot the christian movements out there want to pretty much remove all sex ed from school and pretty damn much society in general, so if we can just stave off that front and keep people in the know....hopefully things might just turn around cause.....2000+ cases a year is about ohhh 2000+ to much for me.
ridenrain @ Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:58 pm
It's looking like popular opinion is that this is a media manufactured issue and it's just not sticking. It bugs you so much you even need to call me names and swear about it.
Boo freak'n hoo.