Definitive Proof: The Left More Hateful Than the Right

" they are slower the conservatives to change sociologically "
so are you saying that it is Progressives, not conservatives, who are resistant to change?
by what possible definition do you rationalize that?

"we all knew that ows needed leadership in order to survive in any meaningful form"
It's been what? three months?
I've never seen a leader of the 99% Movement
nor do i see any sign of any kind at all whatsoever of the movement going anywhere any time in the remotely foreseeable future.

thanks again natty, i dont hear from you often but you always bring things into perspective. im not arguing that racism doesnt exist on the right but i do believe it is exaggerated by those who wish to dismiss us. it seems that there is indeed plenty of closeted racism on the left as you mention, and is exposed when minorities break out of the liberal prefabricated mold created for them. it was apparently obvious during the cain lynching. i am pretty certain that if the same unproven allegations arose with obama in 2007 it would have been excused and ignored by the lberals and the main stream media. its too bad about cain, he seems like a good man and the best in my opinion the right had to offer this election cycle. merry christmas

i am in total agreement with you littl. my point is to show that it also exists on the left, which most on the left seem to gloss over and bury blaming only the right

But the right does the same to the left. Both sides spend so much time being right and making the other side wrong neither can see themselves in any true light. Both are blinded and in the end can we be led by the blind? So wrapped up in issues that in the end have no real impact on how this nation works.

true, but some are more blind then others and they in turn lead the blind. but youre correct you can find it on both sides of the aisle

i apologize if you felt that you were included within my rhetoric. i agree that we should all rise above. but if you'll take note most who contribute to current are constantly bashing the right. if you recall obama put ss and medicare on the table himself back in july. if i dont point out hypocrisy on the left who will? this is just my attempt to keep things "fair and balanced"

I think you mistake one man's ability to try to compromise with hypocrisy.
If you have one group, who's ideology is on par with their own religious beliefs, (and sometimes seemingly inseparable), who will not give an inch on their demands, and who go as far as to threaten things such as "shutting down the government", and you need to get something done, do you compromise or do you stick to your ideology no matter - with nothing getting done at all, or things possibly getting worse?

Being pragmatic, and knowing where to compromise is not hypocrisy.
Being a follower of Jesus, and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to your fellow man, while doing everything you can to remove food, housing, education, jobs, retirement, and health care from their grasp; now that is what I call a hypocrite. It's a person who says they believe something, yet actions show the opposite.

I think you "fair and balanced" act is only acting to tip the balance in the favor of evil.
I use the word evil, because the results of their ideology gives way to harm, is payed for by greed, goes against their own moral code, and is unconcerned with the suffering of others.

If they could only see the outcome of their actions, and recognize the facts as they occur, rather than twisting them to suit their ideology, and stand-up for the rights of people rather than handing them over to the wolves.

I'm all for compromise. But when one side refuses to bend even a little, they become a problem.
They often see compromising as weakness, and then attack those who "go against their ideology". -What purpose does that serve? What good does it do when you're in the position to help others, but rather than to do so, you only point fingers at those who don't do as you do? How does that help anyone?

If you wish to play devil's advocate, be my guest. Just remember who you represent when you do so.

hmmm, i only claim to represent myself, one mans opinion. not all rethugs make jesus an issue nor should they. there is nothing wrong with making ones religious preferences known but i agree, to use it as a central platform is distasteful. but it appears to me that the left is just as adamant about holding onto their own idealogues and just as willing to shut down the country for the sake thereof. plenty of dems in power only pretend to care about their fellow man, greed and corruption is bi-partisan my friend

Could not have said it better.

bigotry isnt even in the equation and again, as usual you misportray me. i never claimed nor does this story that all of the left are more hateful. of course the right has their detractors as well. but overwhelming evidence proves that hate is more prevelant on the left. peace:)

i didnt misportray shit.just made a statement in regards to the the nature of the title of your article.

you took the premise that hatred is present in our political discourse and deticated a group of people via their political leanings to be more hatefull than the others.in doing so you dismissed the inherent individuality each human being posesses and suplminented their identity as "left".
that is the bigotry at hand.

just to show you how rediculous you are being the second of four lines in the comment from you that i am responding to you state:
"i never claimed nor does this story that all of the left are more hateful."
and then in the last statement proceed to state:
"overwhelming evidence proves that hate is more prevelant on the left. peace:)"

at the end of the day, if you want to really get into wich political entity bases its methods and policies in hatred, the republicans win hands down.it has nothing to do with finding random red state hicks who hate, or making fun of politicians who misspeak.as a matter of national policy the democrats for all their flaws are united by progressivism.that is the point upon wich they rally.

the right rallies around xenophobia and hatred.
from proposing legaslation (ie policy) based in calling out people by religion, or fighting against gay marraige.literaly putting themselves in direct opposition to that wich is literaly based in love.

regardless of how it manifests, the policies of that wich is our political right are almost all entire based on the negative spectrum between love and hate.making the left not even close to being as hatefull as the right w/o even trying.

more prevelant does not mean all of. it means what it means and i stand by the statement. all you have to do is quit turning a blind eye and enabling your brethren to continue unchecked. progressivism isnt necessarily a good step forward. you have your own opinion, albeit incorrect concerning who is more hateful. you are welcome to it

this is what you guys on the right dont get about the left, as you project your methods on us.
we know that their are people who are fucking nuts.
we know that their are people who are toxic.
we know that their are people who have nothing but hatred driving them.

the thing is we take all comers, and fight to make sure their mania doesnt make it into our political discourse, while still availing them of their right to be the fucked up toxic mess they are.it doesnt make the vegans representative of the liberal jews, or the the liberal jews representative of the unions, or the unions representative of the tree hugging hippies.we dont walk lock step like you guys do.we create such ludacris things as purity tests as if we are 13 yr old girls.

you guys are struggling to love conservatism above the people and imagine the left does the same.when liberalism doesnt value liberalism above the people, but expects it to serve the people.

we dont have the shared identity you guys love.you are projecting your messed up deal on the left assuming they function the same as you do.

wow

well said Mr. freecrack

long time no see brother, good to have ya back.

if pointing out truth and hypocrisy on the left makes me a trouble maker, guilty as charged my ill informed friend. keep the myth alive, its what the left does best.

again you miss my point. I don't care about left-right crap. it divides and conquers. what good is it when our planet is dying from pollution? what will you argue about then

OMG, where can I get one of those foil hats too?!?!?

well if im dead i guess ill have nothing else to argue about. death is just the next step forward, nothing to fear from it my friend

thanks for not insulting me like the other guy did. I guess you like arguing and will do so till the day you die. I'm just sick if everybody arguing and being rude.

its not so much that i like arguing as it is feeling as passionate about my position as the next guy. what bugs me most is the blatant hypocrisy

thank you. although the food and laughs are what truly bring me back. after exposing hypocrisy on the left, entertaining the ignorant and the purveyors of misspeak are my main goals

since you are not a fox viewer i can only guess that you are once again spreading lies and misspeak in your attempt to prove a shallow point. disagreement with an oposing view does not a hateful person make as the left would prefer to believe. i am not a regular viewer of fox or any of the leftest news media either. but i do know for a fact that most on the right do not speak this way nor flip people off with the regularity of the left. it would be stupid to claim no hate exists on the right but the definitive proof shows that overall the left is much more hateful than the right as this video portrays.

"the definitive proof shows that overall the left is much more hateful than the right as this video portrays."
what you posted is not "definitive proof" of anything except for the author's own blindly ignorant partisan ideological reactionary bigotry.
If you can provide ACTUAL proof of there being "hateful liberals" (a contradiction in terms BTW), then, and only then can you be taken seriously.

"i do know for a fact that most on the right do not speak this way nor flip people off with the regularity of the left"
They actually do it MORE.
What you posted does not illustrate the behavior of MOST on the left.
The article you posted cited what? four examples? or Five?
Most of which were of people simply stating facts.
I can list dozens of examples of reactionary neoconservative right-wingers not only spewing hateful, and often violent, rhetoric, but doing it while lying.
Where are all the misogynistic liberals in the liberal women's rights movement?
Where are all the racist liberals in the liberal fight against racial profiling?
Where are all the homophobic liberal in the liberal campaign for equal civil rights?
Where are all the anti-muslim liberals in the liberal campaign to end America's Christian Fundamentalist Evangelical Crusade in the Arab world?
Where are all the anti-hispanic liberals in the liberal campaign to preserve immigration and naturalization?
Where are all the anti-black liberals in the liberal campaign to fight inner city poverty?
Where are all the anti-gay liberals in the liberal campaign to gain equal civil rights for homosexuals?
I can cite literally dozens of each and every one of these kind of bigotries from the reactionary neoconservative right wing?
How many examples can you come up with on the left?
BTW: The answer to each and every single one of the questions that i just asked is the same, which is this: There are none.

i get my news from reading. minimally, two different newspapers daily. one from the left and one from the right. where most intelligent folks got there info before the age of radio and television. there is much less newscaster nuance and crowd control hyperbole

since you dont actually watch fox and only cherry pick your rhetoric from leftwing blog sites i cant give you much creedence

it is definitive proof, but all one really needs to do is read the paper or watch the news and see for themselves, its not rocket science its observation. and i suppose he paid the left wing dreg who responded to the camera with violent hatred?

i wish you could present more than misspeak. you are very much like those portrayed in the video and typical of the left. full of denial of reality and attempting to justify and excuse lower class societal abnormalties. the evangelicals are no more guilty of crusading than the muslim world, just less violent. where are the anti black conservatives? only in your wet dreams. gays? they have equal rights but want special rights, so they should shut up. homophobia is a fear of, give me a break. who's afraid of gays? preserving immigration? we're all for it as are most hispanics, as long as its legal. women have plenty of rights, especially in bed. profiling is a proven and a less costly measure to protect the innocent. whens the last time an old white woman strapped explosives in her underwear in an attempt to bring down an airliner full of innocent people? get on the reality train of truth, honesty, and justice my misdirected friend, its left the station

"gays? they have equal rights but want special rights"
Marriage is a "special right"?
Since when?
In that case, all heterosexuals have "special rights" too.

"who's afraid of gays?"
The people on Fox News who say that gay marriage will destroy America and Western Civilization, That's who.

"women have plenty of rights"
Except to decide whether or not they want to have children, the way every man can.

"whens the last time an old white woman strapped explosives in her underwear in an attempt to bring down an airliner full of innocent people"
It's nit so much about white women as it is about white men.
Or have you forgotten Oklahoma City?

i believe they should have the same rights as married couples ie: hospital visits, legal, financial and personal affairs sharing etc. if they want recognized unions, fine. but the sancitiy of marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. i hear the gay divorce rate is astronomical!...A recent study by the Office for National Statistics in the United Kingdom found the rate of gay divorce is increasing, according to The Telegraph. The number of gay couples entering domestic unions, or civil partnerships as they are referred to in Britain, was also increasing. The rise in gay divorce was sharp, as 44 percent more gay couples divorced in 2010 than in 2009. The overall divorce rate was low; only 1.6 percent of gay men in civil partnerships divorced and 3.3 percent of gay women. In total 509 domestic partnerships were legally dissolved in 2010, compared with 353 in 2009. Overall, 6,385 gay couples in Britain made their union legal in 2010, an increase of only 100 over 2009. The overall divorce rate in Great Britain, according to the ONS, was 10.5 people divorcing per thousand married people.
Lawyers welcome the business
According to a recent article in the New York Post, divorce attorneys started salivating when gay marriage was signed into law by Andrew Cuomo. After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, gay couples were divorcing within months. An estimated 21,000 gay marriages will occur in New York in the next three years, and 1,800 of them are projected to result in divorce, given New York’s divorce rate of 8.4 percent. However, according to Reuters, should any of these couples move out of state, a divorce in other jurisdictions could be difficult. New York state offers the same divorce rights to gay and heterosexual couples, but that isn’t the case in all states. Thirty states do not recognize same-sex marriage. There are two pending same-sex divorces headed for the Texas Supreme Court because of legal difficulties. A Wyoming court found not long ago that same-sex couples have the right to divorce, though that state does not allow gay marriage.
http://www.newsytype.com/8637-gay-divorce/

"you dont actually watch fox and only cherry pick your rhetoric from leftwing blog sites"
So the New York Daily News is now a left wing blog?
The Pullitzer-Prize-Winning Politifact is now a left wing blog?
The Los Angeles Times is a left-wing blog?
The New York Times is a Left wing blog?
Scientific American is a Left wing blog?
Nature Magazine is a Left wing blog?
The National Academy of Sciences is a left wing blog?
The University of Dayton is left-wing blog?
CNN is a left wing blog?
Nature magazine is a left wing blog?
MIT is a left wing blog?
The San Francisco Chronicle is a left wing blog now?
Salon is now a left wing blog?
Slate magazine is now a left wing blog?
The United States Department of Justice is now a Left-Wing Blog?
The Atlantic is a left-wing blog now?
About.com is a left-wing blog?
Since when did all this happen?

"homophobia is a fear of, give me a break. who's afraid of gays?"
Answer: Rush Limbaugh, the Family Research Council (designated as a hate group by the souther Poverty Law Center), and the National Organization for Marriage

"i believe they should have the same rights as married couples ie: hospital visits, legal, financial and personal affairs sharing etc."
Well then, if that is indeed true, then you are at odds with the Reactionary Regressive Religious Fundamentalist Evangelical Majority of the Neoconservative Teabagging Party "Republicans" in the United States Congress, who campaign for a constitutional amendment to deny all homosexuals those civil rights.
You would also be, i might add, at odds with Majority of Regressive Reactionary Neoconservative Teabagging Partier "Republican" candidates for the Presidency in 2012, who signed a pledge BY the Hate Group "Family Research Council" to sign just such a Constitutional Amendment.
I should add that the Religiously-motivated Reactionary Regressive Neoconservative "Defense of Marriage Act", which the Teabagging Party "Republican" Majority in the House of Representatives has spent millions of taxpayer dollars defending, also complicates, or outright infringes, on many of the rights you mentioned, as well as numerous other privileges and protections afforded to heterosexual couples.

I should also add that at least two of the eleven states (Nevada [6.6], Arkansas [5.6], Wyoming [5.2], Idaho, West Virginia [5], Kentucky [4.6], Oklahoma [4.6], Alaska [4.4], Florida, Maine [4.3]) with the highest divorce rates in the nation [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/state-divorce-rates_n_775688.html#s1678...&title=Nevada] are among the thirteen (eleven) states (California, Colorado, Hawaii [May 5, 1993], Maine [May 6, 2009], Maryland [February 24, 2010], Nevada, Oregon [March 3, 2004, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey [1 June 2009], and New Mexico) that have the rights you mentioned for homosexuals. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#...]

wow, one kook with a sign, not even sure if its not a doctored photo. i believe a few of these same kooks were carrying signs around some of those occupy rallies which by the way have certainly been more hate filled than the tea partiers

hard to take a group of folks who worship a promiscuous lifestyle and have a higher than average divorce rate seriously. nor is it easy to feel sympathy about aids when because of said lifestyle turned it into a world epidemic. its sorta like feeling sorry for smokers who choose that lifestyle and get cancer or feeling sorry for those who choose to eat like pigs, becoming morbidly obese and getting diabetes. gay marriage is an oxymoron. attempting to make abnormal, normal

one white guy against lets see now, i seem to have lost count.

being abhorant to an unnatural and abnormal lifestyle does not equate to fear

"nor is it easy to feel sympathy about aids when because of said lifestyle turned it into a world epidemic."
WRONG

AIDS is caused by the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which originated in non-human primates in Sub-Saharan Africa and was transferred to humans during the late 19th or early 20th century. Genetic research indicates that HIV originated in west-central Africa during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. HIV descends from the related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), which infects apes and monkeys in Africa. Most HIV researchers agree that HIV evolved at some point from the closely related Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), and that SIV or HIV (post mutation) was transferred from non-human primates to humans in the recent past (as a type of zoonosis). Two types of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent, is more easily transmitted and is the cause of the vast majority of HIV infections globally. [http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/83/6/1253.full.pdf+html] The pandemic strain of HIV-1 is closely related to a virus found in the chimpanzees of the subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes, which lives in the forests of the Central African nations of Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of Congo (or Congo-Brazzaville), and Central African Republic. Scientists generally accept that the known strains (or groups) of HIV-1 are most closely related to the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) endemic in wild ape populations of West Central African forests. Particularly, each of the known HIV-1 strains is either closely related to the SIV that infects the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes (SIVcpz), or to the SIV that infects Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), called SIVgor. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442710/pdf/nihms55584.pdf] The pandemic HIV-1 strain (group M or Main) and a very rare strain only found in a few Cameroonian people (group N) are clearly derived from SIVcpz strains endemic in Pan troglodytes troglodytes chimpanzee populations living in Cameroon. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5786/523.full.pdf] Another very rare HIV-1 strain (group P) is clearly derived from SIVgor strains of the same country. Finally, the primate ancestor of HIV-1 group O, a strain infecting tens of thousands of people mostly from Cameroon but also from neighboring countries, is still uncertain, but there is evidence that it is either SIVcpz or SIVgor. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1211554/pdf/1189-05.pdf] It is clear that the several HIV-1 and HIV-2 strains descend from SIVcpz, SIVgor, and SIVsmm viruses, and that bushmeat practice provides the most plausible venue for cross-species transfer to humans. [http://jvi.asm.org/content/79/19/12515.full.pdf+html] According to the natural transfer theory (also called 'Hunter Theory' or 'Bushmeat Theory'), the "simplest and most plausible explanation for the cross-species transmission" of SIV or HIV (post mutation), the virus was transmitted from an ape or monkey to a human when a hunter or bushmeat vendor/handler was bitten or cut while hunting or butchering the animal. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088480/pdf/TB010867.pdf] The resulting exposure to blood or other bodily fluids of the animal can result in SIV infection. [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/356/1410/867.full.pdf+html] The pandemic HIV-1 group M is most closely related to the SIVcpz collected from the southeastern rain forests of Cameroon (modern East Province) near the Sangha River. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442710/pdf/nihms55584.pdf] Thus, this region is presumably where the virus was first transmitted from chimpanzees to humans. However, reviews of the epidemiological evidence of early HIV-1 infection in stored blood samples, and of old cases of AIDS in Central Africa have led many scientists to believe that HIV-1 group M early human epicenter was probably not in Cameroon, but rather farther south in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more probably in its capital city, Kinshasa. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5786/523.full.pdf] A study published in 2008, analyzing viral sequences recovered from a recently-discovered biopsy made in Kinshasa, in 1960, along with previously-known sequences, suggested a common ancestor between 1873 and 1933 (with central estimates varying between 1902 and 1921).
The earliest known positive identification of the HIV-1 virus comes from the Congo in 1959 and 1960 though genetic studies indicate that it passed into the human population from chimpanzees around fifty years earlier. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5472/1789.full.pdf] Some molecular datation studies suggest that HIV-1 group M had its most recent common ancestor (MRCA) (that is, started to spread in the human population) in the early 20th century, probably between 1915 and 1941. [http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/02/02/fj.00-0449fje] Using HIV-1 sequences preserved in human biological samples along with estimates of viral mutation rates, scientists calculate that the jump from chimpanzee to human probably happened during the late 19th or early 20th century, a time of rapid urbanisation and colonisation in equatorial Africa. There is evidence that humans who participate in bushmeat activities, either as hunters or as bushmeat vendors, commonly acquire SIV. However, only a few of these infections were able to cause epidemics in humans, and all did so in the late 19th—early 20th century. To explain why HIV became epidemic only by that time, there are several theories, each invoking specific driving factors that may have promoted SIV adaptation to humans, or initial spread: social changes following colonialism, rapid transmission of SIV through unsafe or unsterile injections (that is, injections in which the needle is reused without being sterilised), colonial abuses and unsafe smallpox vaccinations or injections, or prostitution and the concomitant high frequency of genital ulcer diseases (such as syphilis) in nascent colonial cities. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848574/pdf/pone.0009936.pdf]
HIV-1 strains are thought to have arrived in the United States from Haiti in the late 1960s or early 1970s. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141817/pdf/zpq18566.pdf] A 2007 study states that a strain of HIV-1 probably moved from Africa to Haiti and then entered the United States around 1969. [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes] HIV-1 is believed to have arrived in Haiti from central Africa, possibly through professional contacts with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The current consensus is that HIV was introduced to Haiti by an unknown individual or individuals who contracted it while working in the Democratic Republic of the Congo circa 1966, or from another person who worked there during that time. A mini-epidemic followed, and, circa 1969, yet another unknown individual brought HIV from Haiti to the United States.
Ardoin Antonio, a Jamaican-American shipping clerk who was raised in Haiti, died in New York on June 28, 1959 of Pneumocystis Pneumonia, an AIDS-defining illness.
One of the earliest documented HIV-1 infections was discovered in a preserved blood sample taken in 1959 from a man from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo). A second early documented HIV-1 infection was discovered in a preserved lymph node biopsy sample taken in 1960 from a woman from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo.

Are you, then, comparing homosexuals to chimpanzees?
Because if you are calling gay people apes, i have some news for you:
YOU are an ape too.

"being abhorant to an unnatural and abnormal lifestyle does not equate to fear"
WRONG
->Given the percentage of the world population, equating to at least tens of millions, and perhaps even hundreds of millions of individuals, that are homosexual, homosexuality does not fit any reasonable definition of the word "abnormal".
->Considering that it is a behavior that has been observed by literally dozens of other non-human species in almost every biosphere on nearly every inhabited continent on earth, homosexuality in humans is definitively NOT "unnatural".
->And YES, saying that giving a percentage of the populations the same rights as every other member of the population would, in some way shape or form, precipitate or contribute to the detriment or disintegration of human civilized society can ONLY be explained by completely, totally, and utter irrational fear of that which one is ignorant of.

"occupy rallies...have certainly been more hate filled than the tea partiers"
Please cite specific examples; As i have been to a 99% Movement Protest, and you, if judging only by the sheer ignorance obvious in this one statement, more than likely have not.
I have yet to encounter anyone in the 99% movement who brings any weapons of any kind to any of the protests i have been to.
I have also not seen anyone at any of the 99% movement protests comparing anyone to genocidal mass-murderers, or portraying anyone of different race or ethnicity with racist stereotype imagery.
Unlike the Teabagging Party, which i founded upon the mistaken precepts that the Constitution of the United States of America 1.) Outlines a small, limited, unobtrusive, weak, ineffectual federal government and 2.) Establishes america as a Christian nation founded upon biblical laws; the primary goals of the 99% Movement is to restore the sociological infrastructure of the nation to what it was throughout the most prosperous times in America's history: Namely the 1990's.

"a group of folks who worship a promiscuous lifestyle and have a higher than average divorce rate "
WRONG
The divorce rate in the United States of America among heterosexual couples is 50%
According an article that you yourself posted here, the divorce rate in the United Kingdom of Great Britain among homosexual couples is 8.4% (1.6% for men and 3.3% for women)
That is less that one-fifth of the heterosexual divorce rate.
How, exactly, is that "higher than average"?

"one white guy against lets see now, i seem to have lost count."
So you're saying that this is a racial struggle?

nope. ethnic, religious and ideological

If it's a religious struggle, the constitution prohibits religion in government, so your side loses.
If its an ideological struggle, the ideology of Neoconservativism is regressive and reactionary, essentially a negative argument. One cannot govern based upon what one is NOT going to do, so again, your side loses.
If its an ethnic struggle, both sides are majority caucasian, so neither side wins.

gee and here i thought you were smarter than that. the struggle is between law abiding american citizenry and the islamo-facists who wish to invade and destroy. so back to the original argument of profiling. it makes common sense and is more cost effective to openly profile. profiling is done already but we need to make it more transparant and customary and leave the children and old ladies in pampers alone. you are constantly proven wrong, why do you continue to challenge truth and justice?

I would point out that many "gay" relationships are open and not as easily defined as straight relationships, but I would also point out that other studies, which I am way to lazy to find right now, show that straight people are far more likely to lie about their sex lives. Also just wondering but is this whole hate the gays thing really because you heteros are jealous we have more sex? Just curious.

"nor is it easy to feel sympathy about aids when because of said lifestyle turned it into a world epidemic"
NOT TRUE:
HIV-1 strains are thought to have arrived in the United States from Haiti in the late 1960s or early 1970s. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141817/pdf/zpq18566.pdf] A 2007 study states that a strain of HIV-1 probably moved from Africa to Haiti and then entered the United States around 1969. [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes]HIV-1 is believed to have arrived in Haiti from central Africa, possibly through professional contacts with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The current consensus is that HIV was introduced to Haiti by an unknown individual or individuals who contracted it while working in the Democratic Republic of the Congo circa 1966, or from another person who worked there during that time. A mini-epidemic followed, and, circa 1969, yet another unknown individual brought HIV from Haiti to the United States.
Ardoin Antonio, a Jamaican-American shipping clerk who was raised in Haiti, died in New York on June 28, 1959 of Pneumocystis Pneumonia, an AIDS-defining illness.
One of the earliest documented HIV-1 infections was discovered in a preserved blood sample taken in 1959 from a man from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo). A second early documented HIV-1 infection was discovered in a preserved lymph node biopsy sample taken in 1960 from a woman from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo.
The first confirmed case of AIDS in the United States, a 15-year-old teenage boy who died in 1969. Robert Rayford has since been confirmed as the first documented victim of HIV/AIDS in North America, having died at age 16 in May 1969. In 1969, a 15-year-old African-American male known to medicine as Robert R. died at the St. Louis City Hospital from aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. Robert Rayford (c. 1953 – May 15 or May 16,1969), sometimes identified as Robert R. due to his age, was an American teenager from Missouri who was the earliest confirmed victim of HIV/AIDS in North America. AIDS was suspected as early as 1984, and in 1987, researchers at Tulane University School of Medicine confirmed this, finding HIV-1 in his preserved blood and tissues. Robert had never traveled outside the United States and, indeed, never left the Midwest, and had told doctors that he had never received a blood transfusion. Since Rayford's infection was almost certainly through sexual contact and he had never left the country, it is obvious that he must have received the virus from somebody else already living with it in the United States, meaning that AIDS was present in North America before Robert began showing symptoms in 1966. He also never ventured into cosmopolitan cities such as New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco, which were the sites where the HIV-AIDS epidemic was first observed in the United States. He reported having experienced symptoms since 1966.
A Norwegian sailor and truck driver, who was probably infected in Cameroon some time between 1961 and 1965, and died in 1976. In 1976, a Norwegian sailor, with the alias name Arvid Noe, his wife, and his nine-year-old daughter died of AIDS. Arvid Noe (1946 – 1976) is the alias of a Norwegian sailor who is the first person known to have contracted HIV and died from AIDS outside of the United States. He is the second person confirmed to have died from AIDS, after the teenager known as Robert R., from St. Louis, Missouri, in 1969. The sailor had first presented symptoms in 1969, eight years after he first spent time in ports along the West African coastline. Based on research conducted after his death, Noe is believed to have contracted HIV in Cameroon in 1961 or '62, where he was known to have been sexually active with many African women, including prostitutes. Tissues of Noe, his wife and daughter all tested positive for HIV in an epidemiology study in 1988. Tissue samples from the sailor and his wife were tested in 1988 and found to contain HIV-1 (Group O). Noe was infected with HIV-1 group O, which is known to have been prevalent in Cameroon in the early 1960s.
Margrethe P. Rask (1930 – December 12, 1977), better known as Grethe Rask, was a Danish physician and surgeon who practiced medicine in what was then known as Zaïre (today the Democratic Republic of the Congo). She was likely directly exposed to blood from many Congolese patients, one of whom infected her. She died in December 1977. Rask, who died three and a half years prior to AIDS being recognized by the Centers for Disease Control in June 1981, was one of the first non-Africans (along with Arvid Noe) known to have died of AIDS-related causes.
Gaëtan Dugas (French: [ɡaetɑ̃ dyˈɡa]; February 20, 1953 – March 30, 1984) was a Canadian who worked for the national carrier as a flight attendant. Gaëtan Dugas, so-called "Patient Zero", was a flight attendant who had over 2,500 sexual partners across North America. Dugas became notorious as the alleged patient zero for AIDS, though he is now more accurately regarded as one of many highly sexually active men who spread AIDS widely before the disease was identified. [http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/152/9/814.full.pdf+html] A Canadian airline steward named Gaëtan Dugas was referred to as "Patient 0" in an early AIDS study by Dr. William Darrow of the Centers for Disease Control. He was called "Patient Zero" because at least 40 of the 248 people known to be infected by AIDS in 1983 had had sex with him, or with someone who had sexual intercourse with him. At least 40 of the 248 people diagnosed with AIDS by April 1982 were thought to have had sex either with him or with someone who had. Because of this, many people had considered Dugas to be responsible for bringing HIV to North America. This is inaccurate however, as HIV had spread long before Dugas began his career. [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes] The vast majority of cases of AIDS outside sub-Saharan Africa can be traced back to that single patient (although numerous unrelated incidents of AIDS among Haitian immigrants to the U.S. were recorded in the early 1980s, and, as evidenced by the case of Robert R., isolated incidents of this infection may have been occurring as early as 1966.) [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141817/pdf/zpq18566.pdf] A November 2007 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences dismisses the Patient Zero hypothesis and claims that AIDS transited from Africa to Haiti in 1966 and from Haiti to the United States in 1969. [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes]
One of the first high profile victims of AIDS was the American Rock Hudson, a gay actor who had been married and divorced earlier in life, who died on 2 October 1985 having announced that he was suffering from the virus on 25 July that year. It had been diagnosed during 1984. The virus claimed perhaps its most famous victim yet on 24 November 1991, when British rock star Freddie Mercury, lead singer of the band Queen, died from an AIDS related illness having only announced that he was suffering from the illness the previous day. However he had been diagnosed as HIV positive during 1987. One of the first high profile heterosexual victims of the virus was Arthur Ashe, the American tennis player. He was diagnosed as HIV positive on 31 August 1988, having contracted the virus from blood transfusions during heart surgery earlier in the 1980s. Further tests within 24 hours of the initial diagnosis revealed that Ashe had AIDS, but he did not tell the public about his diagnosis until April 1992. He died, aged 49, as a result of the AIDS virus on 6 February 1993.

So, is this one of those "He has sex with so many different women that he must be gay" sort of things?

im not arguing how or when it arrived nor do i care. my point is and it is fact, that the greatest spread of the disease has been through promiscuous homosexual sexual activity

littl, you know me better than that. i am not expressing hate, just sharing some figures on relationships to prove a point to the lunk head

gays have it made in america and should stfu

"gays have it made in america"

In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association declared that Homosexuality
is a disease.
In 1965, 82% of men and 58% of women said that homosexuality represents a
"clear threat" to the American way of life.
According to a 1979 Jay and Young study, 40 percent of gay men and 39 percent of gay women in the US had attempted or seriously thought about suicide. 53% of transsexual youths surveyed in 1981 had attempted suicide. In 1985, F. Paris estimated that suicides by gay youth may comprise up to 30 percent of all youth suicides in the US. [http://www.ncmhjj.com/resource_kit/pdfs/Special%20Issues/References/GayMaleLesSu...]
80% of gay and lesbian youths who took part in a 1987 study reported feeling severe social isolation. [Hetrick, Emery, and Martin, A. Damien. "Developmental Issues and Their Resolution for Gay and Lesbian Adolescents, " in Journal of Homosexuality, 1987.]
In 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youths
In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
issued its "Report on the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide,"
which found that "A majority of suicide attempts by homosexuals occur
during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to
attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30
percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth suicides annually." [[U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Gay Male and Lesbian
Youth Suicide," by Paul Gibson, in REPORT OF THE SECRETARY'S TASK FORCE
ON YOUTH SUICIDE, ed. Marcia R. Feinleib, Washington, DC, January 1989. See also Remafedi, Gary. Death by Denial: Studies of Gay and Lesbian Youth Suicide (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1995]
In the five major U.S. cities that have professionally staffed agencies
that monitor anti-lesbian and antigay violence--Boston, Chicago,
Minneapolis and St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco-- reports of anti-gay
and anti-lesbian incidents increased by 172% between 1988 and 1992;
In 1988, 697 incidents were reported
In 1990, 949 incidents were reported
In 1992, 1,898 incidents were reported
A campus survey reported that 61 percent of the gay/lesbian respondents feared for their safety as their orientation would be used as a reason for violence. (Herek, Gregory M. And Kevin T. Berrill. (1992). Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_book.html).
From November 3, 1992, to September 30, 1993, at least 132 attempts to
restrict the rights of gay men and lesbians occurred in 41 states and the
District of Columbia. This activity included statewide ballot initiatives,
legislative battles, state court decisions, local ordinance, curriculum
controversies, and attempts at censorship.
In 1993 elections, 3 cities--Cincinnati; Lewiston, Maine; and Portsmouth,
New Hampshire-passed antigay measures by margins of 61% to 31%, 70% to
30~0, and 60% to 400/0, respectively.
As of November 1997, all 50 states denied gay men and lesbians the right to
marry.
In the US, students heard anti-gay slurs such as “homo”, “faggot” and “sissy” about 26 times a day on average, or once every 14 minutes, according to a 1998 study by Mental Health America. [http://www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-an...]
In 1999, the FBI reported that there were 1,317 incidents of violence based on sexual orientation. Of those, anti-male homosexuality violence characterized sixty-nine percent of the incidents (Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Crime in the United States, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1999).
In 2000, there was a total of 2,475 separate incidents against the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender population. Anti-gay and lesbian incidents increased 8 percent from 1999 to 2000. Sixty-four percent of the victims were male and seventy-seven percent identified themselves as lesbian or gay. Serious injuries resulting from these incidents decreased by forty-one percent. (Moore, K. (2001). Anti-lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual Violence in 2000. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.).
In 2006, 1,393 hate and bias incidents against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) victims were reported to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. These incidents affected 1,672 victims, committed by 2,365 offenders. (New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Program, 2007).
The New York-based National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs says the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people killed in bias-motivated incidents increased by 28 percent in 2008 compared to 2007 and that the overall number of victims who reported gay bias violence in 2008 increased by 2 percent. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/16/national/main5091928.shtml]
In the United States, in 2008, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data, though 4,704 crimes were committed due to racial bias and 1,617 were committed due to sexual orientation, only one murder and one forcible rape were committed due to racial bias, whereas five murders and six rapes were committed based on sexual orientation. [http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html]

"just sharing some figures"
Figures that have no readily apparent basis in fact from a recognized hate group on a list referenced by the FBI
Figures that can be found nowhere in the publications that the recognized hate group itself cites as its references.
Figures from a recognized hate group accused by the researchers whose work it cites in it publications of misrepresenting and distorting their research to fit its own bigoted homophobic ideology.
Figures from a recognized hate group which uses figures in its publication that have no basis in mainstream research on the topics, and which have been discredited and debunked by the credible research institutions in their fields.

"i am not expressing hate, "
No, you're just posting bigoted homophobic propaganda from a recognized anti-gay hate group.

"to prove a point"
Any point you might be attempting to make is automatically discredited by your publishing of bigoted propaganda from a recognized hate group.

my information and figures are more valid than yours. its easy too, i just expand my search beyond narrow minded rhetorical and misspoken left wing information sites

it only take a two word answer to disprove your point and validate mine...try iran

i am not wrong, you are. im not arguing the other transmission methods you mention. my point is that the greatest spread has been through promiscuous gay sex. try reading an honest study or use something you sorely lack, common sense

"my information and figures are more valid than yours."
So the recognized Hate Group "Family Research Council" (your ONLY source) is "more valid" than the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the American Society for Microbiology, the Society for General Microbiology, the National Mental Health Association, the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention?

"i just expand my search beyond narrow minded rhetorical and misspoken left wing information sites"
Since when, exactly, have the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, The United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Nation Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, "rhetorical left wing information sites"?
In what possible way are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Washington, New York University, Western Illinois University, and the University of Dayton "narrow minded left wing information sites"?

"two word answer...try iran...disprove your point and validate mine"
What, exactly, does Iran have to with anything?

try being openly gay and voicing openly gay demands over there and see what happens. my point proven, gays in america have it made

youre the brainiac. you tell me...AIDS in America

The AIDS Epidemic in America started in the homosexual community and continues to be a major problem for the male homosexual. With almost 20 years of HIV/AIDS education, research and prevention, we are no closer to a cure or vaccine that can stop spreading the HIV virus. The behaviors that spread this deadly disease, especially in the "gay" community has not stopped and in some circles is growing. The following information tracts the virus from its beginning in America to the present and the homosexual's community responsibility for not controlling the behaviors that continue to plague "gay" America.

According to B. Frank Polk, director of the John Hopkins University's component of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, " In gay men, 95% or more of the infections occur from receptive anal intercourse." The American Journal of Public Health reported that in one study of 240 men who became infected with AIDS, all but 4 had engaged in anal sex as a receptor. Lately, thanks to AIDS the word "promiscuity" has begun to acquire an unfavorable connotation among homosexuals, but not so long ago it was carried as a badge of honor, if not a defining condition of homosexuality itself. It is certainly a defining characteristic of AIDS suffers. Source: M. Fumento, " AIDS: Are Heterosexuals at Risk? " Commentary 84 ( November 1987 ) pp. 22-23.

Homosexual males are at least 30 times more likely to contract HIV. Anal intercourse, receptive and insertive, second only to oral copulation as the most practiced homosexual behavior, has been identified as especially conducive to HIV infection. Source: Coates, Randall A., et al., " Risk Factors for HIV Infection in Males Sexual Contacts of Men with AIDS or an AIDS-related Condition," The American Journal of Epidemiology, 1988, Vol. 5, no. 4.

In 1988, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) canceled a condom study among homosexual youth and stated " In a place like L.A., in the gay community, one would really be talking about delaying the infection rather than preventing it." Source: Allan Parachini, " AIDS-Condom Study Grant Cut Off by U.S.," Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1988, sec. A.

Homosexuals have been the principal recipients and transmitters of the AIDS virus - 70% of all AIDS cases have occurred in homosexual men; in some states and in Europe, the percentages are even higher. Source: W. Heyward and J. Curran, " The Epidemiology of AIDS in the U.S.," Scientific American, October 1988, p. 78.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than the general heterosexual population. Source: " The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, January, 1992, p. 9.

Also in 1992, three London STD clinics reported that almost half of their homosexual patients who knew they were infected with HIV had then contracted rectal gonorrhea. Source: Newell, A., et al, " Sexually transmitted diseases and anal papillomas," British Medical Journal, 1992, Vol. 305, pp. 1435-6.
http://www.gayconspiracy.info/aidsusa.html

still beats patting down the crotches of innocent law abiding american citizens. profiling has worked in several other countries and is a proven method of weeding out undesirables. besides its not so much racial as it is ethnic and if the person profiled doesnt even hold a u.s. passport why should you care. the info you provide is again wrong and even dangerous to american citizens, even your brother agrees...http://current.com/community/93579587_the-obama-war-on-terror-legacy-continued-t...

"my point proven, gays in america have it made"
So you are saying that, compared to the authoritarian fascist theocratic islamist dictatorial regime, of Iran, the secular unitary representative constitutional parliamentary presidential social democratic republic of the United States of America is BETTER?
I would have to say in many, many ways, yes.

"try being openly gay and voicing openly gay demands over there and see what happens"
That is only because the theocratic islamist authoritarian fascist dictatorial regime of Iran has outlawed and criminalized homosexuality [http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/publications/reportsandpublications/1...]; which, by the way, is something that the "Family Research Council", the bigoted homophobic recognized and designated anti-gay Hate Group you cited earlier on this page, has publicly advocated for doing here in America. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35224225/]

Congo, you are just speaking the truth. So many people with personal agendas try to confuse others with their confounded bloviation; the fact remains, AIDS was first called GRIDS, after that segment of the population which was first affected. After the PC pressure grew, it was changed to AIDS, so as not to discriminate against anyone. Hopefully young Ian has educated himself on the facts of AIDS and STDs by now, so he should know that you are accurate.

congoboy:Congo, you are just speaking the truth. So many people with personal agendas try to confuse others with their confounded bloviation; the fact remains, AIDS was first called GRIDS, after that segment of the population which was first affected. After the PC pressure grew, it was changed to AIDS, so as not to discriminate against anyone. Hopefully young Ian has educated himself on the facts of AIDS and STDs by now, so he should know that you are accurate.

"Congo, you are just speaking the truth. So many people with personal agendas try to confuse others with their confounded bloviation; Hopefully young Ian has educated himself on the facts of AIDS and STDs by now, so he should know that you are accurate."
I think its safe to say that i have more facts on this subject than the both of you put together combined.
And the more i "educate" myself as to the facts of the matter, the more of the facts reveal just how radically, blatantly, and demonstrably factually INACCURATE "congoboy"'s willfully-blindly-ignorant Known-Designated-Recognized-Hate-Group Bigoted Homophobic anti-gay propaganda was, is and will forever remain.
Quite literally very nearly NOTHING in the Anti-Gay Hate Group Propaganda publication that "congoboy" posted has been found to be in any way shape or form at all true in any manner whatsoever.
Dcrog: you refer to "people with personal agendas"
Well guess what?
You pal "congoboy" is one of them.
Even If judging only by the sheer number of times he references bigoted homophobic propaganda from a designated, known, and recognized anti-gay hate group in order to allegedly supposedly "support" his own willfully blindly ignorant and bigoted homophobia.
If willfully ignorant homophobic bigotry is not a "personal agenda" then i don't know what is.

nice research. but still irrelevent to the fact that the epidemic spread of aids is mostly through gay sex. except in south africa the child rape capital of the world where its mostly spread by perverted men who rape babies and children

keep the myth alive my denying and enabling friend

although virginesque, i do hope that through all the misinformation he spreads that he has at least learned to wear a condom when the time comes

yup, as i said. my point proven, gays in america have it made. any gay who feels victimized here can always try their luck elsewhere. look, although i find the lifestyle unappealing and vulgar i have nothing against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes as long as it doesnt involve children and no one gets hurt. just keep it out of my and the face and dont try to legislate making the abnormal into something it can never be, normal.

"Within the space of four short paragraphs, the author contradicts one unfounded and baseless "statistic" with yet another patently ludicrous number". sounds a lot like you but you take several lengthy drawn out paragraphs to do the same. regardless, the gay lifestyle being mainly made up of promiscuous selfish self centered men, it is not only proven by fact that their behavior is the main transmission of the aids virus but common sense dictates the same. you are constantly proven wrong, why do you keep coming back? you must be self masochistic. maybe you should take up fighting for a cause where the victims cant defend themselves, like embryos, fetuses and the unborn. let the gays fend for themselves. besides many of them dont care much for breeders

your brother obama. give up on the profiling doesnt work bullshit. the rest of us know it does

"the fact that the epidemic spread of aids is mostly through gay sex."
WRONG

"Although AIDS was first defined in homosexual men in the United States and male-to-male sex remains the predominant mode of transmission in most industrialized countries, the predominant mode of transmission worldwide continues to be heterosexual contact (75% of total spread). In the United States, approximately one-third of new diagnoses appear to be related to heterosexual transmission. Male-to-male sexual contact still accounts for more than half of new diagnoses in the U.S. Intravenous drug use contributes to the remaining cases. Because the diagnosis may occur years after infection, it is likely that a higher proportion of recent infections are due to heterosexual transmission."
UNAIDS. 1999. AIDS epidemic update: December 1999. UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland
http://www.paho.org/English/HCP/HCA/aidsunai99.pdf

"The predominant mode of adult transmission continues to be unprotected, penetrative heterosexual intercourse (that is, without effective use of a barrier contraceptive).
The presence of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs)– especially those causing ulcers, which are common in most developing countries – facilitates heterosexual transmission"
Cohen MS. Sexually transmitted diseases enhance HIV transmission: no longer a hypothesis. Lancet 1998; 351 (suppl III): S5-7
http://www.hpa.org.uk/cdph/issues/cdphvol2/no2/reviews.pdf

"The World Health Organization estimates that heterosexual transmission has accounted for 75% of the HIV infections in adults world-wide."
World Health Organization, The HIV/AIDS pandemic: 1993 Overview, Geneva, World Health Organization, 1993, Publication No. WHO/GPA/CNP/EVA/93.1.
http://smu.edu/cel/newsletter/Winter07/aids.asp

Globally, 85% of HIV transmission is through heterosexual intercourse.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hivaids/article_em.htm

"The major route of HIV transmission worldwide is heterosexual
sex, although risk factors vary within and across populations. In
many regions of the world, men who have sex with men, injection
drug users, and sex workers account for signifi cant proportions of
infections."
UNAIDS, 2006 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic, May 2006
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/report/2006/2...

wrong, nice try though