Though I live in NYC most of the time I vote in PA and voted for Arlen Specter, a Republican, FYI. Rcik Santorum, on the other hand, is an embarrassment.

I read widely including lots of right-leaning journals, magazines etc. I'm familiar with legal resources such as findlaw.com that present the information in a straightforward way without need for politicizing, though they accommodate plenty of political postings on their message board.

I agree that it's great that Bush is increasing funding for AIDS research, and NIH funding too. I didn't trivialize that by not mentioning it, I mentioned administration policies that concerned me, and I specifically asked someone to tell me why this Evertz guy is so qualified for this job, specifically because I only read one article. You had no new information to share about this guy, so I suppose you didn't even read the one article I read.

You have not forwarded any detailed arguments to refute my opinions other than tossing off nasty comments and suggestions. I'm interested in discussion, not mud-slinging. Can you possibly control your rhetoric enough to try and illuminate people, rather than bash your imaginary opposition?

As someone who has voted Republican on occasion, who loves our country's free market impulses and totally approves of hunting and the right to bear arms for nonlethal noncriminal uses (among other political beliefs of mine), I don't think I fit neatly into your "demon" slot, though I never thought the terms Liberal or Conservative as insults per se.

You may be more than remotely aware of the origins of the political term Liberal, so I know you won't want to fall into the trap of using that term so frequently to denigrate people. I think you really mean "socialist" or "social engineer," something like that. You'd make a great speech-writer for Dana Rohrabacher or some other proud representative of your political ideology.

Could you possibly concede that NIH funding under both republicans and democrats made possible a lot of private sector profits in AIDS medication research & development? Perhaps government health r&d with tax revenues is an area where democrats and republicans can agree. Your postings show no interest in the bipartisanship and cooperation that keeps such programs in place over many administrations, you're just blindly defending Bush's overall strategy to date. Don't YOU think for yourself? Don't YOU read more than what you agree with in advance?

I haven't defended the Clinton record - Bill or Hillary's - in any postings. I fully support and contribute to the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Fund and totally oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell as a failed policy, but I do recognize the nasty roles that Sam Nunn, Democrat, lots of Republicans, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff played in thwarting Clinton's original and flawed, grandstanding proposal to dismantle the anti-gay policies of the armed forces. I agree that Clinton set back gay rights mightily by not doing the politically smart thing by building consensus behind closed doors before announcing what he intended to do. I agree that signing the Defense of Marriage Act was reprehensible, and a permanent stain on his Presidential record.

Now would you agree that the Republican Party includes a conservative right wing, a fundamentalist Christian religious right wing, that is organized and powerful and has influenced policy and law on a local and national level for years, and that is motivated in part by a deep animosity toward gay men and women that is evident in the passage of Defense of Marriage, and local and statewide laws and initiatives throughout the country that constrain equal rights for gay men and women? Could you possibly concede that much? Or are you just a blind apologist for conservative dogg-ma?

I'd also be interest in hearing you give a little more detail than "blah blah blah Liberal blah blah" in response to my assertion that the Catholic Church's position on condom use has been a destructive counterweight to the fight against the spread of HIV. You may be aware that most Catholic Americans use condoms themselves, and that there are huge divisions within the Catholic Church, like many other established religious groups, including the clergy and laity on nearly every political issue on which the Church has taken an official stand. Why is it so-called Liberal blather for someone raised Catholic to critique the Church's role in public health policy and specifically AIDS prevention?

I'm not going to hold my breath awaiting a civilized, detailed, informed response from you. Like I said, thank god I live in NY, where Republicans and Democrats know how to have a good political argument without shooting each other. I can't believe it's come to this, that NYC is more polite and civilized than the rest of the country!

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 09, 2001).]