AIDS/HIV | Barack Obama

BigGayDeal.com

Watch: Obama Heckled By AIDS Activists At Rally

Obamaconn
Remember this? And this? Well it happened again yesterday, this time in Bridgeport, Connecticut where President Obama was in town to deliver a speech at the Democratic National Committee "Moving America Forward" rally. The group of  protesters erupted in a chant of “Fund global AIDS! Fund global AIDS!”

Obama countered them:

“Let me just say this — these folks have been — you’ve been appearing at every rally we’ve been doing,” Obama said. “And we’re funding global AIDS. And the other side is not. So I don't know why you think this is a useful strategy to take.” “I think it would make a lot more sense for you guys to go to the folks who aren’t interested in funding global AIDS and chant at that rally, because we’re trying to focus on figuring out how to finance the things that you want financed, all right?

After a few minutes, the protesters were escorted out of the rally by police. Watch video of the incident, wherein Obama seems to get more than just a little annoyed by the interruption, AFTER THE JUMP.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Bush is indeed responsible for large increases in AIDS funding and lifting the HIV ban...give credit where credit is due.

    Obama and both Democrat controlled houses should have repealed DADT A LONG time ago. It's still a clusterfuck. And it's probably the one do-able tangible thing they could have done regarding gay civil rights.

    The truth is the Democrats know 'progressive' gays have no choice other than Democrats. They treat gays the same way they treat blacks, who ALWAYS vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Now don't get me wrong, Republicans do the same thing to their captive audience.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 1, 2010 12:41:31 AM


  2. Parsons:

    MANY things Obama and Congress have done over the past 2 years have made things worse or not improved anything even after spending trillions of dollars. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have also proven themselves [not all, most] to be controlled by big money interests, multinational corporations and Wall St., lock,stock and barrel. Pretty much everything they've done, including obamaCare, benefits them first and foremost, not the average citizen.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 1, 2010 12:48:07 AM


  3. I agree wth ME. Most of our "fighting" has been very, VERY safe.

    Posted by: Queer Equality Revolution | Nov 1, 2010 1:38:41 AM


  4. Then by all means ... vote Republican! You show them money grabbing Democrats that the real voice for the common man are those nice Republicans. You know the GOP who have gained back their popularity by offering ... well there has to be something they have offered ...

    Posted by: Parsons | Nov 1, 2010 2:10:48 AM


  5. Ratbastard,

    The fact that you use the term "Obamacare" is very telling. But please tell me, what president has done more for healthcare reform of any kind IN TWO YEARS than Obama.

    Posted by: Q | Nov 1, 2010 2:37:24 AM


  6. Q:

    I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The federal government's healthcare overhaul is based directly and is almost identical to my state's universal healthcare system. NEWSFLASH: It doesn't work that well. It's now impossible finding a primary care doctor who is accepting new patients. Premiums and costs are not under control. Those who lacked coverage through genuine poverty have always been able to get FREE healthcare through Medicaid in addition to hospitals and clinics that receive large government subsidies to give free care to those who can't afford to pay. Now the federal government is cannibalizing Medicare and Medicaid to pay for, yes, OBAMACARE. The real beneficiaries of ObamaCare [and the Massachusetts system] are the health insurance industry, big pharmaceuticals, and a gigantic new federal government bureaucracy.

    If the intention was to get coverage for the alleged 40 million or so uninsured, they could have simply expanded Medicaid for those truly in poverty and offered insurance pools for those not poor but unable to afford premiums due to being self employed or not offered through their employer. It would have cost a lot less money and trouble than ObamaCare.

    Have a nice day.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 1, 2010 5:53:53 AM


  7. And I'm not Republican. Get your ideological head out of your bum.

    Have a nice day.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 1, 2010 5:57:28 AM


  8. I support Obama on this issue. It has to be done right. Because we know that US funds to fight AIDS has gone to christian groups to fight homosexuality in Africa.

    Posted by: Natira | Nov 1, 2010 6:44:37 AM


  9. Well, to put it bluntly Natira, a lot of the aid money sent to Africa ends up in the off shore bank accounts of it's corrupt leaders. The Christian evangelicals and Muslims manage to raise their own cash.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 1, 2010 7:13:52 AM


  10. RB, not just corrupt leaders, but corrupt NGOs/CBOs, of which 1000s exist. And the US does fund religious NGOs who oppose homosexuality.

    Posted by: Natira | Nov 1, 2010 8:26:43 AM


  11. Ratbastard,

    I asked you who has done more for healthcare reform, not if it was a great system. Clearly it is not perfect, BUT as least it is SOMETHING, compared to what McCain would have done had he won, which surely would have been NOTHING. And what we have now was not what Obama initially presented to Congress, but the Dems had no fucking backbone and kowtowed to the Reps demands. So a more accurate description would be CONGRECARE.

    As per this Reuters article, you are drastically overstating the so-called "cannibalism of Medicare"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62J1FS20100322

    As for expanding Medicare coverage, though it sounds like a good idea, it is also problematic:

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1947063,00.html

    Posted by: Q | Nov 1, 2010 10:01:34 AM


  12. GregV is absolutely correct: outside the US and other prosperous countries, HIV/AIDS has little to do with GLBT issues. It's a health care issue (duh), sociological issue (mainly, husbands cheating on wives or having multiple wives), and human rights issue, and is often at its peak in countries that despise GLBT people.

    I'm far more inclined to support malaria, tuberculosis, polio, and even cholera control in many of those countries, because those diseases have disastrous effects on children. I'm no fan of excessive birth rates, but at least children are still young enough that there's some mild hope they can lead healthy lives and avoid at least some of the hatred spewed by their ignorant forebears---who, as we've seen everywhere, rarely change for the better.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 1, 2010 10:20:24 AM


  13. @Tank, Obama lifted the Ban, Bush started to but fell short, He made it so that you could get a 30 day visa if you have your AIDS meds.

    YOU don't get to make crap up either. I mean the internet is available to you dude.

    Also to everyone else, I hate you and you make me ashamed to be 1) Literate, 2) Gay, 3) White, 4) Better than you.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Nov 1, 2010 10:29:04 AM


  14. Q:

    Both Time and Reuters SUCK...they really do.

    I stand by my previous posts.

    ...Have a nice day

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 1, 2010 11:02:09 AM


  15. Ratbastard,

    Whether they suck or not has no bearing on the facts. Either they are wrong or right. If they are wrong, prove it.

    Posted by: Q | Nov 1, 2010 12:08:12 PM


  16. Bush signed repeal of the aids travel ban into effect, and obama implemented it. What's not to understand? Them's the facts, stooopit.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 1, 2010 2:13:09 PM


  17. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Intercepted Bomb Was Addressed To Chicago Gay Synagogue « «