An AIDS memorial for Canberra

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

milkman said :

justin heywood said :

OK Andrew. You are a gay man. We get it. Nobody gives a s**t. Nobody has really given a s*** for 20 years.

Now get this Andrew. The reason people don’t like you is not because they are bigoted. It’s because you are a moron. A small man given responsibility far beyond your ability but not your ambition.
Get over yourself.

+1000000000000000000

Another +1 from me. Gay, straight, who cares?

And another +1 from me too.

Barr needs to engage AKA have sensible discussions with the community rather than dummy spit every time someone says something he doesn’t like or disagrees with something he says.

Personally, I’d like to see all money raised put to research. To me, a memorial is to remember something that has happened, not a reminder of something that is still happening.

Anna Key said :

Maybe I missed it, but where is it going to be located? And does this mean it already has planning approval?

sarcasm mode
So many choices, how about in Fyshwick at the toilet block next to the Childcare centre (as it is also just near Mustang Ranch), Black Mountain/Peninsula or just NIMBY?
/sarcasm mode

milkman said :

justin heywood said :

OK Andrew. You are a gay man. We get it. Nobody gives a s**t. Nobody has really given a s*** for 20 years.

Now get this Andrew. The reason people don’t like you is not because they are bigoted. It’s because you are a moron. A small man given responsibility far beyond your ability but not your ambition.
Get over yourself.

+1000000000000000000

Another +1 from me. Gay, straight, who cares?

justin heywood said :

OK Andrew. You are a gay man. We get it. Nobody gives a s**t. Nobody has really given a s*** for 20 years.

Now get this Andrew. The reason people don’t like you is not because they are bigoted. It’s because you are a moron. A small man given responsibility far beyond your ability but not your ambition.
Get over yourself.

+1000000000000000000

OK Andrew. You are a gay man. We get it. Nobody gives a s**t. Nobody has really given a s*** for 20 years.

Now get this Andrew. The reason people don’t like you is not because they are bigoted. It’s because you are a moron. A small man given responsibility far beyond your ability but not your ambition.
Get over yourself.

A disappointing response from Andrew. It’s getting typical of Barr, Corbell and Burch that any criticism seems to be attacked with an arrogant posture that we plebs would dare question our betters. I’ve no problem with Andrew supporting causes that may be close to his heart, but I did note he chose to apply the blanket criticism from his MLA account so does that mean it is an official government position.

I-filed said :

Thumper said :

And, like others on this forum, I also take offence at Barr and his simplistic and unwarranted abuse of others who simply disagree with him. Name slinging, ie bigotry, rednecks, predjudice and hate, is not discussion.

This does indeed raise the question: what on Earth does Andrew “Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is A Bigot” Barr think he can gain by painting everyday constituents as homophobes? As I said earlier, I am pro gay marriage. Along with many other voters though, I will vote against any elected member who only wishes to represent his own likeness among the electorate.

I’m not. I’m anti-marriage. So I could hardly be pro-marriage for homosexuals.

Why anybody thinks they need a licence from the government to be with their partner of choice completely escapes me.
It must be the very conventional homosexuals who want to marry each other. Now my brain’s just threatening to explode.
Actually, I’ve figured it out: they’re not wanting to get married, they just want to maliciously ruin it for everybody else who does. Kind of fits with the constant “you’re a bigot” tantrumming.
Julia Gillard doesn’t impress me much (she’s only a lawyer, after all), but she’s bang on the money on this issue.

Thumper said :

And, like others on this forum, I also take offence at Barr and his simplistic and unwarranted abuse of others who simply disagree with him. Name slinging, ie bigotry, rednecks, predjudice and hate, is not discussion.

This does indeed raise the question: what on Earth does Andrew “Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is A Bigot” Barr think he can gain by painting everyday constituents as homophobes? As I said earlier, I am pro gay marriage. Along with many other voters though, I will vote against any elected member who only wishes to represent his own likeness among the electorate.

Diggety said :

LSWCHP said :

So dying of AIDS is a truly terrible thing, I’ll vouch for that. And if someone wants to set up a memorial to those people who’ve died of this disease then good on them. I don’t see it detracting from anything else to any significant extent.

But what really shits me is the response of Mr Barr to the RiotAct posts on this topic. Rather than articulating a reasoned argument, he just fires off a couple of abusive tweets directed at all members of this forum, and departs in a cloud of smug.

Based on the evidence presented one would have to conclude that Mr Barr is not capable of sustaining a thought process or an argument that extends past 140 characters. Disagree with him and you get 140 characters of pompous, self-righteous abuse with no chance of any further conversation.

How about it MR Barr? Prove me wrong. Create a RiotAct account and get into some genuine community engagement that might actually mean something beyond this twitter crap. Present your point of view and have it out with HenryBG and Ben_Dover and the other people in our community who disagree with you. Show them that they’re wrong and you’re right.

I’m heating the popcorn

+1

The one direntional self-rightous attacks from Twitter is not something we should expect from a politician towards his constituants.

+2

a very bad move for someone who’s political career rests on popular support

I’m also a supporter of gay marriage, one of my best mates is married to his male partner, (in the UK.) They deserve as much respect, credibility, and joy in their union as anyone else.

poetix said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I wish I had $1 for every time this was posted on RA. A meme grown so old it’s a ritual, I tells you.

It was pretty funny when I started doing it years ago. Now it’s a habit so ingrained I don’t think I’ll ever stop.

That it still draws responses makes it all worthwhile…

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I agree and I am picturing that in my head right now…… Camera slowly pans across the room, many candles flickering in the background accentuated with some vaseline on the lense to give it that soft blurred effect with puppies and kittens running around in the foreground.

Our charactors “Betty and “Veronica” look across the bedroom at each other wantingly eyes betraying lustful intent as no word is spoken between the two, only suggestive glances.

Veronica’s comically large bust swayed from side to side as she sashayed across room in an awkwardly unbalanced fashion, she was used to being on her back and being upright for so long was making her dizzy.

Betty sat on the bed as her large posterier dictated that she must do and proceeded to untie her doc martens in the most practical yet sensual way. It was sensuous since you was asking.

What does this have to with a memorial? The puppies and a kitten had AIDS!

Now imagine this with Bruce Springsteen singing “Philadelphia” in the background so it does not come across as tasteless.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I wish I had $1 for every time this was posted on RA. A meme grown so old it’s a ritual, I tells you.

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

While I’m all for gay marriage, I’m against this proposal simply because it seems like it is a self serving personal agenda item for Barr with no real benefits to the ACT community as a whole.

And, like others on this forum, I also take offence at Barr and his simplistic and unwarranted abuse of others who simply disagree with him. Name slinging, ie bigotry, rednecks, predjudice and hate, is not discussion.

I expect more than just abuse from my elected officials.

Obviously I am expecting too much.

LSWCHP said :

So dying of AIDS is a truly terrible thing, I’ll vouch for that. And if someone wants to set up a memorial to those people who’ve died of this disease then good on them. I don’t see it detracting from anything else to any significant extent.

But what really shits me is the response of Mr Barr to the RiotAct posts on this topic. Rather than articulating a reasoned argument, he just fires off a couple of abusive tweets directed at all members of this forum, and departs in a cloud of smug.

Based on the evidence presented one would have to conclude that Mr Barr is not capable of sustaining a thought process or an argument that extends past 140 characters. Disagree with him and you get 140 characters of pompous, self-righteous abuse with no chance of any further conversation.

How about it MR Barr? Prove me wrong. Create a RiotAct account and get into some genuine community engagement that might actually mean something beyond this twitter crap. Present your point of view and have it out with HenryBG and Ben_Dover and the other people in our community who disagree with you. Show them that they’re wrong and you’re right.

I’m heating the popcorn

+1

The one direntional self-rightous attacks from Twitter is not something we should expect from a politician towards his constituants.

My good mate Ian was a Vietnam veteran, funny bastard, allround nice guy and gay. He must’ve been one of the first AIDS victims in the ACT, because as I recall (it was a long time ago now) he died around 1987. The last time I saw him alive I barely recognised him. He was only about 40, but he looked 90. His hair had turned white, he was wrinkled and all his teeth had fallen out. He was hunched and shrivelled. There was no trace left of the boisterous boofhead I’d known fso well and for so long.

So dying of AIDS is a truly terrible thing, I’ll vouch for that. And if someone wants to set up a memorial to those people who’ve died of this disease then good on them. I don’t see it detracting from anything else to any significant extent. Maybe my friend would’ve liked a memorial, or maybe he would’ve preferred the money to go to research into the disease that killed. I dunno, and he can’t speak because he’s dead.

But what really shits me is the response of Mr Barr to the RiotAct posts on this topic. Rather than articulating a reasoned argument, he just fires off a couple of abusive tweets directed at all members of this forum, and departs in a cloud of smug.

Based on the evidence presented one would have to conclude that Mr Barr is not capable of sustaining a thought process or an argument that extends past 140 characters. Disagree with him and you get 140 characters of pompous, self-righteous abuse with no chance of any further conversation.

How about it MR Barr? Prove me wrong. Create a RiotAct account and get into some genuine community engagement that might actually mean something beyond this twitter crap. Present your point of view and have it out with HenryBG and Ben_Dover and the other people in our community who disagree with you. Show them that they’re wrong and you’re right.

I’m heating the popcorn

Some of my best friends are gay, but………………………

Seriously, what is this fixation with having bloody memorials for every damn cause nowadays? Are we trying to emulate the US, where there seems to be an excuse to commemorate every tiny thing that ever happened – and sadly, to the point where it has become tacky and disrespectful?

I don’t care if the proposal was for a memorial to the victims of lung cancer, victims of influenza, victims of ingrown toenails or victims of money lost on gift vouchers – I’d still think it was stupid and a waste of money that people could be donating to something worthwhile, like as others have already suggested, HIV/AIDS research.

And as I said earlier, my other problem with this proposal is that taxpayers money ultimately will be spent on this – regardless of what the supporters say – not just for the use of the land that it will be sited on, but also the ongoing maintainance and upkeep of the memorial.

Twitter that, Andrew!

Scribble said :

Agree with Jim Jones. A proposal that effortlessly bunches the panties of some of the most reliable bores on the RiotACT is worth supporting.

If all you were doing was aggravating people, that would be one thing, but painting people who disagree with you in terms which are in this day and age close to or even over the border of criminality is an exact replica of the methods used by totalitarian regimes.
In this case the relevant regime would be the Soviet one. I recognise Andrew Barr’s method as one I witnessed before in Eastern Europe.
Disagree with somebody who currently has power, and that power will be used to the maximum possible extent to disenfranchise you.

This is one reason I was disappointed in 1989 – I thought they should have kept an enclave complete with Wall, psychotic border guards, and frothing-mouthed lunatic bureaucrats (with Twitter accounts, why not) so that future generations could experience the natural logical outcome of letting people like Stanhope, Barr, or the Greens get ensconced in power.

There is *some* research to suggest that charitable giving is a zero sum game – that is, there is a set number of dollars that the population gives to charity in any given period, and the various charitable organisations compete with each other for those dollars.

On that (open to debate) basis, I would echo the sentiments of some on here that would prefer to see the money spent on actual research rather than a physical memorial. However, there is no practical or sensible means of enforcing this preference so in the absence of this memorial causing any specific harm, I’m indifferent.