Skip to comments.Obama speaks to half-empty fundraiser--heckled in Florida
Posted on 06/14/2011 8:14:27 AM PDT by kingattax
President Obamas re-election campaign swept through Florida on Monday. Obama spoke at three fundraisers, including one that was open to the public.
The largest fundraiser had a disappointing turnout. Politico reported that only 980 tickets were sold for the event at the 2,200 seat Adrienne Arsht Center. The upper level of the center was completely empty, the second and third levels only partially full, according to Politico.
Tickets were sold at a relatively low $44.
I know the conversation you guys are having. Im not feeling as hopeful as I was. And I understand that, Obama told attendees. There have been frustrations, and Ive got some dings to show for it over the last two and half years.
During the speech a protester interrupted, shouting, keep your promise, stop AIDS now. Other attendees drowned out the heckler by chanting Obama, Obama, Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Stop putting your peter in other dude's keesters. Problem solved.
When President, Jimmy was just liberal and stupid. Obama goes further, because while President, Obama hates the country.
“- is correct, and will go a long way towards ending AIDS.”
So you think it’s all dirty needles and “unprotected homo sex” in Africa? Wow. You keep telling yourself that.
Martial Law coming around election time.
Agreed. The bigger he loses, the more he will play the victim in future speeches where he will make millions reading off a teleprompter as white liberals throw money at him out of guilt.
“Again, my speculation: Obama is in the toilet, all demographics.”
Without a doubt, but in talking to Obama cultists, I’m noticing a disconnect. They’ll swear up and down they would never vote for Obama again.... unless Palin was running...and then that becomes, unless a Republican was running. In other words, their culture of hate towards Conservatives is motivating enough for them to relive the glory moment of 2008. The Left thinks they can manipulate and rile up their base with a flip of the switch...and we saw with Gabby Giffords, that this is pretty much true. But as far as Obama winning support with a good campaign... those days are done.
I don't want to get into an argument, but with all due respect, first, airborne never mentioned Africa.
Second, I have to agree with airborne as to the causes, based on my understanding, it's getting the virus into the blood, either by using dirty needles or having unprotected sex do blood transfusions account for many cases of aids nowadays?
What other causes are you talking about?
Oops... This: “having unprotected sex do blood transfusions”
Should read “having unprotected sex. Do ...”
Sorry for the mistake, everyone.
Simple. Obama is a shoo-in for re-election IF Obama's opponents do something extremely irrational. For example:
An NFL team is a shoo-in to win the Super Bowl IF the other team is irrational enough to put in their prettiest cheerleader as their only quarterback because she is sooooo cute and sooooo adorable.
Cute & Adorable Rating: Through the roof.
Ability to win the 2012 Super Bowl as the quaterback: None whatsoever
Likewise, the GOP will lose in a landslide IF the GOP primary voters are irrational enough to nominate a GOP candidate that sixty five percent (65%) of all voters have said that they will "definitely NOT vote for" because she is sooooo cute and sooooo adorable.
That is the scenario that scares the cr@p out of me. Irrational GOP primary voters that vote for cuteness and adorability rather than electability and then hand the White House over to Marxist Barack Hussein Obama for another four years..
Of all the debaters in last night's Republican debate, most American voters would choose "None of the Above".
Bill Clinton did not announce his first winning candidacy until October of the year before the election. The GOP field has until around October of 2011 to attract a strong, conservative candidate whose poll numbers are not lower than whale scat at the bottom of the ocean and who can actually defeat Obama.
If not, America will habe saddled with RINO Romney or Marxist Obama as President of the United States for the next four years.
The bloom’s off the rose.
Good!! Hope it let ll the way up to the election & we can be rid of this mistake.
What a Canucklehead.
Once again you misrepresent what I clearly stated.
I have to wonder what your agenda is.
I told you before that if you had additional causes, you were welcome to share your knowledge, and thereby enter into a discussion.
Instead you make up words of your own and attribute them to me.
Again I wonder, what is your agenda? What point is it you wish to share?
Other than trying to attack me.
You startled me!
I thought I had posted on the wrong thread!
It’s not 1984.
I’m not trying to give a PSA here, but the outdated notion that HIV and AIDS are a “Gay Cancer”, and written off as something which occurs predominantly amongst druggies and homosexuals, is dangerously ignorant and misleading.
I’ve made the point. My agenda? I don’t want Freepers to think they are immune or even at lesser risk to communicable disease.
So why not just make that statement, instead of making up something and attaching it to me?
I'm sure all of us Freepers are better informed by a comment which includes facts than it does by a comment which includes nothing but a vague accusation.
The world's shortest drinking game, that one is.
“I dont want Freepers to think they are immune or even at lesser risk to communicable disease.”
Its only communicable if you’re gay, bisexual, or an intravenous drug user... as HIV/AIDs if DEEPLY ROOTED in these communities. Your efforts to make it appear mainstream is ridiculous.
So you see that less than about 2% of the population by sexual orientation carries more than twice the number of HIV infections as the other 98%. The numbers for HIV through intravenous drug use apart from sexual activity amount to about 1/10 that of sexual activity. So the two biggest means of HIV transmission are sexual activity (homosexual > heterosexual by more than 2:1 in raw numbers, unadjusted by population) and intravenous drug use. This all means that an extremely small number of individuals are responsible for the largest portion of HIV infections.
Transmission Category Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection, 2009 Adult and Adolescent Males Adult and Adolescent Females Total Male-to-male sexual contact 23,846 - 23,846 Injection drug use 2,449 1,483 3,932 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,131 - 1,131 Heterosexual contact* 4,399 8,461 12,860 Other** 47 29 76* Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
The distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection among children* in the 40 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category, follows:
* The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 years at the time of diagnosis.
Transmission Category Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection, 2009 Perinatal 131 Other** 35
** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, and risk not reported or not identified.
The location of the event is in a city (Miami) with a population of 2,496,435 & loaded with Liberals.
See, it doesn’t help that you’re now trying to statistically argue the idea that the Freeper demographic is less at risk.
There are no reliable AIDS/HIV stats. Sorry. You were quick to ignore the stats in your own table though, which show more than half the cases were heterosexuals, with a disproportionate amount of those being heterosexual women.
“instead of making up something and attaching it to me?”
I’ll take that as you not standing behind your post, and feeling attacked for getting called on it. By portraying AIDS as you did, you may put your own community at greater risk.
...But I’m not arguing “almost anything”.
I’m arguing in very general terms that anyone misleading the Freeper community to think they are less at risk...or saying anything vaguely suggestive that Homosexuals and Drug Users make up the bulk of AIDS victims.... is doing a disservice, and playing off outdated information.
Relying on statistics would also enable erroneous thinking such as “well I’m not a Black female living in DC, Florida, or California, so I’m not at risk”.
There are no solid stats. You won’t find accurate world numbers, you won’t find two studies using the same methodology, and studies are rarely updated yearly. There’s too much of an industry to manipulate the numbers for their purposes, depending on if they want to make one group look at risk or less at risk, just as *you* did.
AIDS and HIV are not a homosexual thing, or a drug user thing. Please don’t mislead anyone into thinking otherwise. There was a time when nobody would have suspected Black Females would become the hardest hit demographic.
You’ve twisted my words before, so it figures you would continue.
So I’ll say good day to you. Continue your agenda on your own time. I’m done with your ignorance.
Fags are unhappy because Obamessiah hasn’t cured the sick!
Are you really arguing in 2011, that AIDS is a homosexual, and druggie thing?
Here’s your chance to clarify yourself, rather than whine I’m putting words into someone’s mouth. I mean, why stop there? Why not just deny AIDS ever existed.
That's only if Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee. I think that is nonsense, but many here believe it.
A. There are no reliable AIDS/HIV stats.I pointed out that if A is true, then you positively cannot make the assertion of B on any basis of fact.
B. AIDS and HIV are not a homosexual thing, or a drug user thing. Please dont mislead anyone into thinking otherwise.
“I pointed out that if A is true, then you positively cannot make the assertion of B on any basis of fact.”
Which I’m sure you think is some great debate tactic for the argument you’re not even comfortable admitting you’re making... unfortunately, we’re talking about HIV. People die from it. They’re not all drug users, or sexual deviants. Your attempts to defend someone who made that characterization puts blood on your hands. It was denialist attitudes like yours that resulted in countless deaths, including those in the medical profession attending to these patients.
To your ridiculous frosh year debate club argument - you will not be able to find 3 independent sources with the same statistics on HIV internationally. Hell, you won’t even find a consensus on wether oral sex can transmit HIV. Much of the disease still remains a mystery.
The study *you* provided from the CDC states that 73% of women (the fastest growing demographic of victims) got HIV from heterosexual sex.
“You are bringing in other things I didn’t even speak about: international HIV infections.”
Why not? Oh right, you think HIV is relegated to Gayland and Druggieland.
Seriously, the minutia above is nonsense. It’s not 1984, there is no such thing as “gay cancer”, and if you want to promote ignorance based on bigotry, you will get called out on it.