All bow down to the alter of Reagan...

With all due respect to someone who took a bullet while serving in his role as the leader of our country, former President Ronald Reagan was not the perfect person he is being portrayed to be at this time.

As one of the news commentators said last night, there was good AND bad about the man, and about his presidency....but this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the bad, but only to remember the good. It's about respect, good manners, and not speaking ill of the dead, IMO.

I would be more inclined to be respectful of his passing had he been more respectful and prevented the death of 10,000+ of my fellow gay and lesbian Americans. It's a tiny little fact that many want to gloss over. Where was HIS respect for the lives of those who needlessly contracted the disease? By capitulating to the religous community, President Reagan decided NOT to fund AIDS research and education - in fact, he didn't even mention the word AIDS until 1987! When people respect the rights of ALL, they get the respect they deserve. Former President Reagan is personally and professional responsible for these deaths, that's not respectful is it? In fact, it's pretty much deriliction of duty as I see it. So, thanks for the "manners" lesson - but you'll forgive me if I don't accept them - in honor of the 10,000+ and related family members who aren't going to be as saddened by the passing of Ronald Reagan as you are. I respect his accomplishments, and I celebrate is public service - as I would anyone who is committed to public service. But I do not give up the right to speak out against his irresponsible action -- and do so before the religious right and "compassionate conservatives" rename another federal building or reprint our currency with his mug on it.

Based on the coverage I have seen, I don't think Reagan is being portrayed as "perfect".

someone who had as many failures as he had successes

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a consensus that Reagan's presidency was not a success overall. Issue's like AIDS funding are hardly as important as things like the economy and the cold war.

Rampant unprotected sex had by millions of straight and gay folks *looooong* after the facts of AIDS were publicly known resulted in their deaths not Reagan. Show some sack and let people take responsibility for their own lives for christs sake. Was Reagan supposed to run about strapping condoms onto cocks? Get real.

Just depends on who you're asking. Try asking the African American community or the gay and lesbian community and you'll get a dramatically different issue than the white, well-to-do.

Yes because an intrenched culture of entitlement has been foisted on folks to make them beleive that nothing is *thier* own fault. It is much easier to place the blame for your own STD on a public figure than it is to say that maybe I should have kept it in my pants a bit more often.

"Let's not forget that it was Ronald Reagan that refused to provide funding for AIDS educatioin and research that resulted in tens of thousands of people contracting the disease needlessly - and ultimately allowing the disease to be more globally dominating than it should have been."

Yes... yes... and billions of dollars in research money and almost universal AIDS education has made a huge difference since '87, huh? Perhaps you stopped looking at statistics around '87.

Anyway, no one is saying Reagan was perfect, but when you compare him with, say, Clinton... another 2 term President in our generation... well, the comparison is brutal. Besides, this isn't being "engineered". 100,000 people didn't show up at the Reagan library at gunpoint.

People loved Reagan, and he was a good man. Perfect, no. But good enough to totally eclipse Kerry and the rest, which is what seems to be irking the left so much.

---

P.S. Next time you see a gathering enjoyed by your local "gay and lesbian community ", I think that the majority could easily fall under the heading "white, well-to-do".

This article points out that:

1. The Reagan administration spent millions of dollars on AIDS research.
2. Reagan first mentioned AIDS publicly in 1985.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp

Blaming Reagan for the AIDS epidemic is symptomatic of why the gay movement has gotten so little mainstream support. The Reagan administration spent many billions of dollars on AIDS research. Frankly, I would rather have seen that money put into cancer research or other areas that affect more people. AIDS is pretty preventable and it was quite early on known how it spread. Even I, as a kid back then, understood how it was spread.

But more to the point, tryin gto slam Reagan during his funeral is the height of tackyness. Would it kill his opponents to go one week without trashing the man?

Well Draginol, perhaps you should have been an official in the public health industry in America or worldwide, because your infinite wisdom expressed above seems to be far beyond everyone else of that era. And really, Reagan spent "many billions" on AIDS research - care to prove that? This is exactly how people like you spread lies. Congrats!

I dont think the left's vitriol is actually aimed at President Reagan per se. As he has shaken these mortal coils, nothing they say or do will lessen his life and accomplishments. Rather it is by spreading lies and distortions they hope to quell what they perceive to be a sympathy vote for George W. Bush. They are so insecure in their own candidate (find one that even knows what Kerry Stands for - if such a thing even exists), that their only recourse is to spew hate and hope for simple souls will pick up their mantra and not vote for Bush.

I think several people have already refuted this Blog. There is nothing more to say, other than Vaya con Dios, President Reagan. YOu were the best president of my life time, bar none.

Why would you put words into my mouth? I said nothing of McDonalds? Please continue to elaborate on topics that I didn't mention, your attempt to obfuscate the matter proves my point that you'll do anything to run from the truth.

Reply By: little_whip Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
Rampant unprotected sex had by millions of straight and gay folks *looooong* after the facts of AIDS were publicly known resulted in their deaths not Reagan. Show some sack and let people take responsibility for their own lives for christs sake


Bravo, greywar! Geo's stance is "victimhood" in its purest form, akin to blaming McD's for being fat, never mind the fact that you shoved thousands of their tasty grease burgers down your own throat.

As far as all the good things being said about Reagan right now, thats simply tradition, doH. We dont deliver eulogies in order to detail what a son-of-a-bitch so and so was, and how we are glad he's dead now.

Just depends on who you're asking. Try asking the African American community or the gay and lesbian community and you'll get a dramatically different issue than the white, well-to-do.


And that, my dear, is a sweeping generalization and a racist stereotype, because it assumes that all well-to-do whites are heartless, uncaring bastards and only gays, lesbians, and blacks can "see the light" and agree with you. (I refuse to call them African-Americans, btw, unless they were born in Africa and immigrated here, theres nothing African about a 5th or 6th generation american black, just as theres nothing German or Irish about me, other than the fact that some great-great-grandparent or another hailed from there, and race is not the same as nationality.)

Why is it ok for homosexuals and american blacks to make hateful stereotypical remarks like that towards heterosexuals, caucasians, and christians, while at the same time shouting "TOLERANCE" from every rooftop?

Tolerance for you, perhaps. But not for those who disagree with you. We're just "well to do whites" and as such, are worthy of contempt and dismissal.

Hmmm... wow, talk about sweepting generalizations. That's a pretty rascist remark there. Yeah, I've reached the intolerace and bigotry room!

Reply By: greywar Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
Yes because an intrenched culture of entitlement has been foisted on folks to make them beleive that nothing is *thier* own fault. It is much easier to place the blame for your own STD on a public figure than it is to say that maybe I should have kept it in my pants a bit more often.

Your facts are clearly wrong.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.14/news.extra.reagans.html

This "vitriol"? Hmm.. I think you should re-read the thread above and tell me who the vitriol is coming from. I'm merely stating, and the public record speaks for it's self that early in the epidimiology of AIDS, there was a clear lack of information as to how the disease was spreading. It's painfully easy to see how it was spreading now, but it simply was not known during the critical years of the early to mid 80's. But I can see the clear record of number of infected, number of dead, and the lack of funding isn't the real issue. I'm apparently communicating with those who agree with Reagan as he sided with the religious community that there wasn't anything that should be done. Here's to hoping you don't contract a deadly disease or illness. My remarks started with just a little request for some rationality behind the hysteria of this State Funeral. I clearly indicated my respect for Reagan's service to his country. After you finishing watching CNN and dry your eyes from the pomp and circumstance, and regain your sense of rational behavior, let's talk. Until then, keep your "vitriol" to yourself. Regards. And by the way, your hateful, rascist, homophobic vitriol does nothing but encourage me to continue the call for tolerance.

That's a pretty rascist remark there. Yeah, I've reached the intolerace and bigotry room!

 

     Son, the only person who has mentioned race here is *you*. This is the last point you will ever garner from my leaving a comment on your blog. I will not support further discussions with a person who spews "racist" when challenged. Good bye. Additionally you have just been blacklisted feel free to reciprocate or not.

The billions spent on AIDS research was brought up on This Week with George Stephanopolus. It was, the exact same figure, brought up by foreign Sec of State Alexander Haig this past week on one of the cable TV shows. If they're still on Tivo I'll try to get the exact quote. 

For a guy who blames Reagan for the deaths of millions of people you're pretty quick to call people liars.  You're not helping your cause by being such a zealot.

First of all, I'm not your son - and the mere use of that word in that manner is an attempt to demonstrate some higher level of superiority or knowledge - both of which I doubt would be accurate. Secondly, YOU are the one that is using sweeping generalizations that an entire class of people are living in an "entitlement" state of mind. And lastly, good bye - don't really care about being "blacklisted." I didn't post my feelings to warm your hearts and win friends. Last time I checked, I too have the right of free expression. If you would like a healthy dialogue - bring it on. If all you can do is punch and run, go on!

Reply By: greywar Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
That's a pretty rascist remark there. Yeah, I've reached the intolerace and bigotry room!


Son, the only person who has mentioned race here is *you*. This is the last point you will ever garner from my leaving a comment on your blog. I will not support further discussions with a person who spews "racist" when challenged. Good bye. Additionally you have just been blacklisted feel free to reciprocate or not.

What did this mean in practical terms? Most importantly, AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.

This is a quote from GeoATL's article. This is a classic example of distorting facts. The author gives a figure for the dollar amount spent by one agency during an early year in Reagan's administration. The author says that AIDS research was "chronically underfunded" and that the "drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years" leading the reader to believe that the funding level cited by the author was the norm throughout the 80s.

The actual numbers though, tell a different story. A total of over 5 billion dollars was spent during the Reagan administration.

Government Spending on HIV/AIDS

Fiscal Year
($ Millions)
% growth over previous year

1982
8

1983
44
450.00

1984
103
134.09

1985
205
99.03

1986
508
147.80

1987
922
81.50

1988
1,615
75.16

1989
2,322
43.78


Total
5,727


Source: Congressional Research Service

D- you are more than welcomed, encouraged even, to get the exact quote. During the critically important early years... 1981-83 less than $200 million was spent on the disease. More specifically, it was the continued blocking of AIDS Education in schools and other settings that allowed the disease to spread so rampantly. It's very easy to see how the disease is spread now, but I can't say it strongly enough that it was simply not known by enough people during these 3 years. I would welcome any data you find, but my point remains that when it mattered most - in the early years when there was a chance to reduce the spread - our number one public servant, did not serve the public's interest, he served the interest of the religous right.

Regarding your comment about "for a guy who blames Reagan for the deaths of millions, you're pretty quick to call people liars." Your statement is a nonsequitor. What is your point. Yes, I do blame him. And NO, I'm not quick, just informed enough to know what I've stated above, when it mattered the most - he didn't lead. Kinda like our current president.



Draginol: The billions spent on AIDS research was brought up on This Week with George Stephanopolus. It was, the exact same figure, brought up by foreign Sec of State Alexander Haig this past week on one of the cable TV shows. If they're still on Tivo I'll try to get the exact quote.

For a guy who blames Reagan for the deaths of millions of people you're pretty quick to call people liars. You're not helping your cause by being such a zealot.

Well to quote the Saint Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." The distortion of the facts are that you want to look at the some total and assume it was all in good effort. Reagan was begged by the staff of the CDC to provide more funding. In the first three years, and by all means review your own data below if you don't believe me, less than 200 million dollars were spent on this disease. Less than 10 million in the first 2 years. It wasn't until damn near every actor, singer, and other person of noteriety created fundraisers, and moved public sentiment in the right direction, did the funding begin to take wings.

Bottom line, I said it before and I'll say it again, WHEN IT MATTERED MOST, HE DIDN'T LEAD. Just like our current president.




Reply By: Madine Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
What did this mean in practical terms? Most importantly, AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.


This is a quote from GeoATL's article. This is a classic example of distorting facts. The author gives a figure for the dollar amount spent by one agency during an early year in Reagan's administration. The author says that AIDS research was "chronically underfunded" and that the "drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years" leading the reader to believe that the funding level cited by the author was the norm throughout the 80s.

The actual numbers though, tell a different story. A total of over 5 billion dollars was spent during the Reagan administration.

Government Spending on HIV/AIDS

Fiscal Year
($ Millions)
% growth over previous year

1982
8

1983
44
450.00

1984
103
134.09

1985
205
99.03

1986
508
147.80

1987
922
81.50

1988
1,615
75.16

1989
2,322
43.78


Total
5,727

By the way, who did I call a liar? And when?

(post #11) "This is exactly how people like you spread lies. Congrats!"

You realize a billion is a thousand million, right? So 5,727 million would be billions of dollars. Look at that spending as opposed to the mortality statistics in the US. AIDS barely figures into them. Then look at the spending that goes into AIDS research and I think you'll see how grossly exagerated the attention AIDS gets is. All because people can't keep it in their pants.

If the blood supply is handled correctly and people stopped having irrepsponsible sex with anyone and everyone, AIDS wouldn't be problem. Damn cheap as solutions go.

Tossing AIDS in Reagan's face is supposedly responsible, but tossing 9/11 in Clinton's face isn't? How about I toss the 1 million Rwandans that died while Clinton said that we would only intervene in situations that were in the US interest?

Please. This is a pathetic string of sour grapes flung at a person who is dead. How pathetic is that? If the memory of a conservative is more influential than all the weeping, living liberals... well... your problem isn't Reagan.

Well, I'm 36, have a bachelor's degree, and a pretty good grip of the English language. And as far as I can see, the line you've highlighted doesn't read "you're a liar". Stop putting words into my mouth. So what's worse, calling someone a liar - which I don't feel like I did - or attempting to marginalize or belittle someone? Thanks for the math lesson. If you would take a second to think a tad more logically - the "tipping point" of AIDS could not be stopped because precious few dollars were spent in the first 3 years. Think about all the young gay (AND STRAIGHT) men who have unprotected sex... now think about how many times that occurs in a year... now multiply that by three years. That's a lot of unprotected sex. And all of that sex should have been informed and educated about the origins or cause of AIDS. And it wasn't. You simply can't argue that it was. The data highlighted by someone early to prove me wrong even shows that less than 10 million dollars was spent in the first two years of this disease.

As far as sour grapes go - I have none. If you think the lives of tens of thousands of people are "sour grapes" you are lacking compassion. God will judge Ronald Reagan. And he will judge you and a I as well. If AIDS is God's punishment for abnomal behavior..... what was Ronald Reagan being punished for with Alzheimers?


Reply #24 By: BakerStreet - 6/10/2004 2:19:53 PM

(post #11) "This is exactly how people like you spread lies. Congrats!"


You realize a billion is a thousand million, right? So 5,727 million would be billions of dollars. Look at that spending as opposed to the mortality statistics in the US. AIDS barely figures into them. Then look at the spending that goes into AIDS research and I think you'll see how grossly exagerated the attention AIDS gets is. All because people can't keep it in their pants.

If the blood supply is handled correctly and people stopped having irrepsponsible sex with anyone and everyone, AIDS wouldn't be problem. Damn cheap as solutions go.

Tossing AIDS in Reagan's face is supposedly responsible, but tossing 9/11 in Clinton's face isn't? How about I toss the 1 million Rwandans that died while Clinton said that we would only intervene in situations that were in the US interest?

Please. This is a pathetic string of sour grapes flung at a person who is dead. How pathetic is that? If the memory of a conservative is more influential than all the weeping, living liberals... well... your problem isn't Reagan.

While at the gym, I saw bits and pieces of the O'Reilly Factor on one of the five TVs, and it was concerning Reagan's death and something it said really stood out. If the left really wants to gain support on issues, they need to stop with the demonizing.

It sounds as though Reagan did do something toward fighting AIDS, but I guess since he wasn't dedicating all his resources to the cause, he was a bad man. After all, even though cancer and many other diseases kill as well, and aren't as preventable, AIDS should have been his number one concern 'cause gay people had it and they come first.

Tossing AIDS in Reagan's face is supposedly responsible, but tossing 9/11 in Clinton's face isn't? How about I toss the 1 million Rwandans that died while Clinton said that we would only intervene in situations that were in the US interest?

Indeed, and unlike with Reagan, he didn't even provide a little support, but I guess genocide of Africans is all good.