Quote :

"Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House."

http://coloradoindependent.com/22701/schultheis-hiv-testing-for-pregnant-moms-rewards-sexual-promiscuity

Quote :

"“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”"

http://coloradoindependent.com/22746/state-senator-hiv-babies-are-punishment-for-promiscous-moms

3/7/2009 2:14:59 PM

wow. that makes a lot of fucking sense


[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2009 2:17:05 PM

Wouldn't it make more sense to 'punish' these mothers by letting them know earlier so they can feel guilty for the inevitable death of the child the entire time their kid is growing up?

3/7/2009 2:20:12 PM

I hope this guy catches AIDS from the tons of anonymous, unprotected sex that he's no doubt having.

3/7/2009 2:27:43 PM

I doubt its anonymous, he probably knows the names of the call-girl's he repeatedly uses

3/7/2009 2:37:12 PM

yeah at this point

Independent > Democrat > Apathetic > Republican

thats right

i put more stock in the political beliefs of people without political beliefs than the people who bow to Rush Limbaugh

3/7/2009 2:37:15 PM

I think your real problem is that you love putting people into groups and judging them based on that. It's okay, we all have a natural tendency to do it.

3/7/2009 2:46:36 PM

well if people self-identify as republicans or democrats, then what's wrong with judging their beliefs based on the label that they have self-identified? you're just trying to stir shit. he said nothing about lumping people into groups. these people lump themselves into groups.

in fact, in his showing that he prefers independents most, he obviously values independent thinkers and people who don't side with a specific group all the time.

3/7/2009 2:58:05 PM

oh my God, what in the hell is wrong with this guy? This is like something out of The Onion. I mean, it makes me want to strangle this guy that he thinks inflicting HIV upon a newborn baby is acceptable for the sake of guilt-tripping the mother (aside from the fact that the mother has clearly already paid a price for whatever she did, as she contracted HIV).



the other thing that kills me is that the GOP seems to think "we're not getting elected--we need to move more in this direction!"

No, you're not getting elected because you are getting none of the swing vote, and in fact have gotten so bad that registered Republicans like me are writing in votes of "no confidence" in elections, or voting Libertarian on the rare occasion that their candidate isn't completely crazy.

[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : adfasdf]

[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ASDasd]

3/7/2009 3:25:42 PM

Quote :

"you love putting people into groups "

LOL

WOODFOOT MADE ME REGISTER WITH A PARTY

HE STOOD AT THE BOE AND HE SAID "YOU GO UNAFFILIATED, YOU GO DIE!"

3/8/2009 12:39:01 AM

So by being affiliated with a certain party, you have to agree with the positions of everyone that is also affiliated with that party? I've been doing it wrong this whole time.

Does every Republican bow to Rush Limbaugh? Obviously not. That won't stop you from judging people - and not on their positions, but on an arbitrary party label that isn't even a good indicator of one's political positions.

3/8/2009 4:42:39 AM

This is fucking retarded.

mother to child HIV transmission is absolutely preventable, but without HIV testing you markedly increase the chances of infecting the child.

3/8/2009 9:00:14 AM

Tom Tancredo

3/8/2009 9:14:42 AM

I'm a conservative (Republican for lack of a better political affiliation). This guy is an idiot and I don't agree with this horseshite.

3/8/2009 10:10:16 AM

^ what he said

3/8/2009 10:24:43 AM

Quote :

"but on an arbitrary party label that isn't even a good indicator of one's political positions."

WHY WOULD YOU WEAR A LABEL THEN

honestly, if its not "even a good indicator", why bother?

you realize you're basically making my argument for me, right?

3/8/2009 3:45:02 PM

I suspect every mother should get HIV tested just for the sake of it, but it seems that is different from supporting a law requiring every mother in the land to get tested, even virgins that had invetro. Seems like in most cases it would be an unwaranted invasion of privacy coupled with a waste of time and money in an effort to save a few babbies that will most likely not be saved anyway, as such mothers will most likely ignore the law.

On the other-hand, it might solve a adverse signalling problem, as some mother might want to get tested but are affraid of implying to their husbands that they do not trust them to have been faithful. Well, that would not be a relationship conflict if the test was required by law.

[Edited on March 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/8/2009 3:57:05 PM

Quote :

"mother to child HIV transmission is absolutely preventable, but without HIV testing you markedly increase the chances of infecting the child."

that would be the 'duh' that makes the senator's statements downright silly.

Doesn't the transfer usually occur due to breast-feeding? Hey, I know how we'll stop the spread of HIV, we'll spread it more and then surely people will eventually change their actions, right?

3/8/2009 4:06:57 PM

^ It's been a rousing success in Africa after all - amirite?

3/8/2009 4:09:23 PM

the only people practicing abstinence due to this strategy are the dead ones.

3/8/2009 4:13:52 PM

Dead men spread no AIDS.

...unless there's a significant necrophile population. But that's a different problem.

3/8/2009 4:19:18 PM

woah there, before we start making statements like that we're going to have to check with some AIDS specialists on whether the disease can spread from the dead to the living.

If so, then we'll need some democrats to propose free dead screening programs, and some republicans to oppose them.

3/8/2009 4:39:27 PM

sigh

3/9/2009 3:20:21 PM

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the ignant stem cell arguments begin

3/9/2009 11:32:21 PM

This sounds a lot like some of the things Jesse Helms used to say
To his credit, at least, he became educated on the issue, and then, most importantly, a bit compassionate.

3/10/2009 12:48:31 AM

I think you should be more embarrassed about living in a country where an elected, government official will say such a thing.

USA USA USA

3/10/2009 2:18:52 AM

I'm with LoneSnark on this one.
You found one crazy Republican, and you are glad you're not a Republican.
Yet you completely ignore the bill which will force a medical test on hundreds of thousands of responsible women who might otherwise choose not to have it done.
The Libertarian in me is screaming.

Quote :

"Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said..."

Are we to believe that Republicans were not outraged by the comment? Yay Democrats, the party with scruples in 2009!

3/10/2009 10:25:12 AM

I think there is nothing wrong if the state makes avaliable for free such test; I am against though making it mandatory.

Regardless this moonbat's comments are absolutly absurd; and the GOP wonders why they are slumping in the pools.

Well golly gee; it is probably because we ain't being conservative enough. Lets give moderates who are friends with the luberals a boot. PALIN 2012!!!


[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM. Reason : a]

3/10/2009 11:26:44 AM