Because she’s right ?
You are actually a terrible person!
You would rather lie to make yourself feel better than confront the truth and encourage people to take responsibility for their actions! You must want them to die is that it?
How awful actions have consequences and people like you are the reason the number of new cases keep rising!!!
 June 10, 2016 at 12:12am
You can do the math based on how long he is saying he’s been infected. Somewhere around 1998 There was heavy testing and a ban on all blood from even potentially infected sources so blood transfusion is out.
That leaves drug use, rough (bloody) sex and Gay sex.
A needle is doubtful because it would probably be mentioned. I live in florida atm and can’t find anything about him using drugs. That leaves sex either rough or with men and based on statistics the smart money points overwhelmingly at Gay sex. He also a noted homosexual I believe the local papers say so…..
Oh we can also conclude he’s a bottom based on the odds even among MSM the female position is the one that poses the highest risk of infection from anal tears that occur durring sex.
He could of been out of country hypothetically, unlikely though.
[-1] June 10, 2016 at 12:01am
Only if you include Africa in places where they lack Hygine and also do things with blood…..
In civilized countries what your saying is a lie…….
 June 10, 2016 at 12:00am
They actually did a Study I used to work for a HIV task force he is actually correct and your wrong. They don’t like to admit it but If your a lesbian or having Heterosexual sex as a man your chances of.infection are near zero check the cdc they have the records.
If they admit 98% of all cases in the last 15 years are MSM they’d lose funding….
 June 9, 2016 at 11:56pm
Actually wrong MSW sex rates are so low they were never included in the original numbers.
Additionally check the CDC You have a better chance of getting his by lightning than contractijg HIV from vagina sex.
The people ar risk are women and MSM or men who sleep with men.
Lesbians and heterosexual men are the least likely possible.
While ******* fluid and even saliva have HIV the concentration is actually so low that you practically have to bath in it. If a penis has open wounds is about the most likely way for vaginap intercourse to affect men.
If you want to avoid HIv marry a virgin and don’t **** guys your chanes become as close to zero as possible in nature.
June 27, 2015 at 5:28pm
That is a lie The court was clear that it was going to happen if Kennedy and the other justices lied
The precedent already exist in Bob Jones University a 1983 case that allows the government to force churches to do it or lose their tax exempt status. Losing this status they will be treated like any other business and then shut down for being bigots nice try .
 January 17, 2015 at 5:18pm
Um 100 years ago was 1914 you should really pick up a book……… You missed a lot. Like oceans of human history. You have no idea what marriage was like in 1914 and that is hilarious that think people were buying women with live stock and grains. Where in the Balkans ? you as hilarious HP you must be the most ignorant progressive troll I have ever met .
 January 17, 2015 at 5:14pm
“Except every argument that is being used to try and deny gay marriage can (and has) be used to deny interracial marriage.”
Well that is a lie and historically in accurate. Black and white were marrying in 14 states durring Jim Crow. Actually interacial marriage was first out lawed in the birth place of SSM. The new Jim Crow SSM has noting to with an imutable charecteristic. It also violates the 14th ammendment until such time as congress creates a homosexual protected class. It also violates Baker v Nelson.
Unlike SSM black and whites have been marrying for over 5,000 years. Marriage has Been a man and a woman in every country for all of human history. When SCOTUS decided against the state in Loving v. Virginia they cited that 34 states had legislatively repealed such laws. No comparison here all these were judge imposed even the first one. Interracial marriage is as old as our country and SSM is not.(speaking of US laws) In fact 14 states never had any laws on interracial marriage. HP has no argument here he has tried this again and again and people who actually know history and the law have proven him a liar. You have to wonder why he repeats the same lie over and over and over again. Clearly he knows he is wrong but tells you a lie when he knows the truth. WErid
There is simply no valid legal argument for SSM and there never has been.
January 17, 2015 at 5:01pm
Excellent Job of simplifying it
 January 17, 2015 at 4:57pm
Thought I’d take a sec to correct HP for ol times sake
Genetics and Homosexuality Nope nada not even a little over * separate twin studies and many more have confirmed that it is not genetic and at best genetics play a very minor role if any in a person sexual preference. Feel free to study ad nausium Science America had a number of articles though I prefer peer reviewed articles.
Interracial marriage= Not even on point Race cannot be legally defined and no skin color does not determine a persons race. Move to Southern Florida you’ll be wrong 25% of the time. Jim crow laws were made by Democrats to alter marriage prior to Jim crows and as early as 1648 in US colonial territories Blacks Hispanics and white married constantly. Altering marriage for political reasons is a democrat past time.
Civil Unions did in fact give every aspect of marriage THis is proven my a New Jersey case which is why they avoided SSM till SCOTUS repealed a provision of DOMA that caused an inequality not of the states making rather than force the Fed to fix this mistake and grant these right to New Jersey citizen which would have granted such rights to gays in all 50 states they sued to redefine marriage.
January 17, 2015 at 4:44pm
well put and legally correct to boot
 January 17, 2015 at 4:39pm
It has more to do with the rule of law and the use of such law to attack religion. Which is the solely reason it has been forced on States that did not want it. If it had popular support they wold never have gone to court and wasted time and money. However they do not have the support to pass such measure state to state or to lobby congress. It was faster and cheaper to have the president hire judges who would vote the way gay donors wanted and have Eric Holder persuade others they would be rewarded for following suit.
Again Congress could solve this whole thing tomorrow no matter what side your on. However they do not and for good reason. The law is clear about marriage but they could establish gay partnership rights and civil unions tax and inheritance benefits in a day. Why haven’t democrats proposed such a bill ? Think how many GAys would benefit in all 50 states. The question would be moot victory and equality for all ! Yet it still hasn’t happened………
January 17, 2015 at 4:31pm
False according to the last poll the majority of people DO NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE it fell from about 50/50 to now 51% do not support it and only 49% said they do so……. research says support is and has been slipping over the last few years
 January 17, 2015 at 4:29pm
If that were true then there would never have been a campaign in CA or Washington state where legislative measures were taken over ten years ago to grant every protection of marriage to every gay couple without license. This is a political and idealogical ploy. It has no basis beyond attacking religion. Congress could end this tomorrow they could enact a bill tomorrow call samesex unions anything grant x rights and they would still sue because it is not called marriage. The battle is over redefining a word as a basis to attack religion and its adherents
January 9, 2015 at 10:33am
Well said however your problem is not in being right its in being understood. They hate you to much to listen
January 9, 2015 at 10:29am
Sorry Binky said something so crazy I had to come correct him. The mayor and the city council are part of the government. This is a clear and simple. A first year law student can spot it. Its clear Binky hasn’t read the text or even understood it. The law has numerous precedents that mirror this situation and have been ruled to be illegal.
excellent videos. It is irrational to objectively examine all the data and conclude atheism.
The first video is just a re-hashing of the cosmological argument, plus a host of assumptions about the thing they've assumed is necessary (and may be, but may not be), the prime mover, such that only "a god" is left as an explanation. I've always found this to be one of the more interesting apologetic tactics since it DOESN'T ACTUALLY PROVE anything MORE than theism (not even necessarily MONOTHEISM, since if ONE god could be a prime mover, why couldn't SEVERAL?) EVEN IF you accept ALL the arguments premises and its conclusion.
I'm not exactly sure what the point of the 2nd video is. If it's point is to try to prove that any religious mythos is a better explanation for empirically observable phenomena than our current scientific theories, then all I have to say is: ha, ah, ah aha hah ah ah aha ha hah aha ahah ha ha haha ah aha. Science is better, and gets more accurate over time, simply because it doesn't PURPORT to have all the answers, but rather SEEKS them. Really, religion is picking an unfair fight for itself if the question is "what serves our inquiry into TRUTH better." Lastly, I'd like to address what I believe is a misconception that the speaker in the second video seems to be suffering from--that theists don't have the burden of proof on THEIR claims about the existence of THEIR god. As a matter of FACT, even if we had NO scientific theories about anything at all, NO religious explanation would become an IOTA more persuasive or credible in the absence of independent reliable evidence for its claims. Argument isn't a sports game where you win by default if you're the last man standing--each and every claim actually has to carry its burden of proof, OTHERWISE its NOT credible. So if we have no PROVEN science and only UNPROVEN religious explanations, what's the correct answer? I DON'T KNOW. The correct answer does not magically become "my favorite mythology."
Finally, the third argument seeks to rebut the problem of evil (so it's not really an argument FOR god's existence, so much as it's a rebuttal of rebuttal of that claim), which is only really a problem if you assume god has the power and knowledge to intervene, AND would be inclined to do so because that god is "good" in the sense humans use the term.
The speaker starts by trotting out the tired "free will" response, which isn't responsive to the problem, since (a) it's their ACTIONS not their WILL that we care about intervening on; and (b) WE don't sit around excusing inaction from, say the POLICE, in the face of a demonstrably harmful immoral act as "moral" because it "respects the free will" of the evildoer--why is god suddenly subject to a double standard on morality?
 September 23, 2014 at 8:49pm
No it’s a plaque
The government puts up crap all the time and most of it goes unoticed.
You just pick this one because you know you can get away from it here and not in most other countries….
 September 23, 2014 at 8:47pm
Sex Ed actually doesn’t work what it does cause is a lot of teen age pregnancies. Attempts to teach kids that sex should be fun and consequence free.
Dramatically increased the number of kids with STDS, Kids and Child support payments. It also raised the amount of porn children 14 and up watch by like 500% percent since it was instituted….
There is actually a ton of holes in the evolutionary theory. Frankly it doesn’t make since to anyone but they have been preaching it so long it’s hard to stop now. We are not sure and probably never will be sure how humans EXACTLY came to be. Intellegent design makes just as much sense as Evolution does http://youtu.be/gIorXcloIac