Top 15 causes of death in 2001:

1 Diseases of heart - 700,142
2 Malignant neoplasms - 553,768
3 Cerebrovascular diseases - 163,538
4 Chronic lower respiratory diseases - 123,013
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) - 101,537
6 Diabetes mellitus - 71,372
7 Influenza and pneumonia - 62,034
8 Alzheimer ’s disease - 53,852
9 Nephritis,nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis - 39,480
10 Septicemia - 32,238
11 Intentional self-harm (suicide) - 30,622
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 27,035
13 Assault (homicide) - 20,308
14 Essential (primary)hypertension and hypertensive disease - 19,250
15 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids - 17,301

14,175 died of AIDS in 2001. Oddly, I don't see people wearing ribbons to commemorate the deaths of people who die of Influenza, Diabetes, or Alzheimer ’s disease. I doubt the average person has ever heard of Septicemia.

AIDS became a "cause" for one reason only, and it wasn't the imminent danger to the population as a whole. It was because of the immanent danger to one particular, irresponsible lifestyle. There are many innocent people with AIDS, and the their deaths lie on the hands of the people who stubbornly, homicidally spread it because of some imaginary "right" they think they have to nail anything that moves..

Blaming Reagan just shows how desperate people are to make an issue out of it, when there are vastly more important issues at hand.

If AIDS is God's punishment for abnomal behavior

Who suggested this to be the case?

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to this subject.  To suggest that Reagan got Alzhiemers as punishment from God really voids your credibility as a compassionate person as far as I am concerned.  Sounds like compassion is a one-way-street for you.

I don't think you are helping your cause and I don't think that you truly do show any respect for President Reagan.  At the time of someone's death, a person should restrain themselves from speaking ill out of respect for that person's loved ones.  Just because people are talking so much about his qualities right now doesn't mean they didn't see flaws.  I don't think anyone thought he was perfect.  He was, however, a damn good President.  He showed a love for this country and for freedom that really helped a hurting national morale.

*chuckles at "O'Reilly Factor* Uh, well... if it's on the O'Reilly Factor it must be true. You too fail to see the central point of my argument, and I'm getting tired of repeating it. But here goes again... when leadership was needed the most, he failed to lead! In the first three years of this disease, we had the opportunity to minimize it's impact, and because Reagan took too long to act responsibly - like the public servant he was elected to do - the disease spread more quicly and widely than it should have. You're welcome to join the debate here - but try to keep the less productive tone out of it if you don't mind. No one is saying that Reagan should have shelved all other matters to focus on AIDS. But there's a world of difference between doing that, and what he should have done. He didn't lead when he should have. Did you ever stop to think that we're not demonizing, but trying to express some rational thought in what is off the chart irrational exuberance of the moment. I reserve the right to upset at his failings, and the right to express them WHENEVER I please. Period.

Oh, and unlike President Reagan (Iran-Contra, Strategic Missile Defense debacle, voodoo economics, etc) and unlike our current president (WMD, wasteful tax cuts, massive deficit under a Republican administration and Congress), President Clinton has admitted the error of Rwanda. Your boys can't even seem to admit the smallest of failings.

Reply #26 By: Saiyan Robot - 6/10/2004 2:42:10 PM

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.

I'm sorry, are you actually saying that you've never heard the conservative right and the christian community say that AIDS is god's punshisment for homosexuals? Surely this isn't the first you've heard of this. And again, words are being twisted here.. read again... I didn't suggest that Reagan got Alzhiemers for any reason. The question was, if homosexuals got AIDS as punishment for their behavior - why did Reagan get Alzheimers? I think it's ludicrous to suggest either scenario. But the Homosexuality=Punishment With AIDS has been stated for decades, and continues to be so. I think it's silly. But I'd like to know, from those who think this is true - if such a quid pro quo exists, why did Reagan get Alzheimers?

This conversation started merely as a chance to reign in some of the irrational celebration of a man's life -- and precious little was being and is still being stated (turn on the news if you don't believe me) about his failings - when you enter the public arena, you have to take the good comments as well as the bad.

Again, do not put words in my mouth - I'm NOT suggesting Reagan's ailment was for some sort of wrong doing on his part - it's irrational to think so.





Jill: Who suggested this to be the case?

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to this subject. To suggest that Reagan got Alzhiemers as punishment from God really voids your credibility as a compassionate person as far as I am concerned. Sounds like compassion is a one-way-street for you.

I don't think you are helping your cause and I don't think that you truly do show any respect for President Reagan. At the time of someone's death, a person should restrain themselves from speaking ill out of respect for that person's loved ones. Just because people are talking so much about his qualities right now doesn't mean they didn't see flaws. I don't think anyone thought he was perfect. He was, however, a damn good President. He showed a love for this country and for freedom that really helped a hurting national morale.

*chuckles at "O'Reilly Factor* Uh, well... if it's on the O'Reilly Factor it must be true.

I guess you're right. The demonizing is really helping their cause and O'Reilly was wrong to suggest they should stop.

You too fail to see the central point of my argument, and I'm getting tired of repeating it. But here goes again... when leadership was needed the most, he failed to lead! In the first three years of this disease, we had the opportunity to minimize it's impact, and because Reagan took too long to act responsibly - like the public servant he was elected to do - the disease spread more quicly and widely than it should have. You're welcome to join the debate here - but try to keep the less productive tone out of it if you don't mind. No one is saying that Reagan should have shelved all other matters to focus on AIDS. But there's a world of difference between doing that, and what he should have done. He didn't lead when he should have. Did you ever stop to think that we're not demonizing, but trying to express some rational thought in what is off the chart irrational exuberance of the moment. I reserve the right to upset at his failings, and the right to express them WHENEVER I please. Period.

And I think you're missing the point that there were more important issues at hand. I guess Bush is wrong not to be spending billions yearly on ADHD research.

Oh, and unlike President Reagan (Iran-Contra, Strategic Missile Defense debacle, voodoo economics, etc) and unlike our current president (WMD, wasteful tax cuts, massive deficit under a Republican administration and Congress), President Clinton has admitted the error of Rwanda. Your boys can't even seem to admit the smallest of failings.

I guess knowingly allowing genocide to occur is not nearly as bad as those things you've mentioned as long as you apologize for it after it's all said and done.

Hm... well, if you chose not to read my comments thats your own problem. Former President Clinton has acknowledge the failings of his policy.

I wonder how congress would have reacted if Reagan had tried to shove through billions for AIDS research? I suppose there would have been overwhelming support for Reagan in 1982 if he had shoved his duties aside and put immense importance on disease that wasn't killing much of anyone, and now, 20 years later, is still way down on the mortality list.

Do you think that he could have forced the congress to do a single thing more than they did? You aren't much of a student of history if you believe so. He carried out the will of the people, which was his job. If you put a list of research funding and mortality rates in front of Americans to vote on, they'd do the same thing even today.

Americans take AIDS seriously. I have contact with an AIDS clinic, and frankly the people who take it least seriously seems to be the people who get it most often. Beat on the AIDS drum all you want, but this is a disease that people don't have to get, and don't have to spread to innocents.

"Desperate"... "chip on your shoulder"... "tacky"... enough of the insults people. stick to the debate.

First of all BakerStreet, your assumption that there aren't other ribbons for other diseases is vastly incorrect. The AIDS tragedy in fact started a trend of having different color ribbons to identify support for different ailments. It's HUGE. Pink is Breast Cancer, Black & Blue is Law Enforcement, so on and so on.

Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, the statistics you site below are AS MUCH thanks due to the general public, the Hollywood community, and entertainers in general who created much public visibility for the concern. It's only because people outside of government acted more swiftly than the government did that education spread and resources were identified. The Elton John AIDS Foundation, the Ryan White AIDS Foundation, AmFAR and sooooo many more leveraged their time and resources to get word out to young men and women across the globe to reduce the ignorance. And speaking of the globe... HOW CAN YOU SAY that AIDS is not a threat to the population as a whole? Have you read about what's occuring in Africa? Just for the record, that didn't come from gay men in America. It's one of only a handful of topics being discussed at the G8 summit this week here in Georgia. And, in a VERY appropriate move, our current President had the balls to provide much needed funding for Africa to get access to newer generations of medicines to help stem the tide of this disease (spreading heterosexually).

Instead of trying to levy your criticisms of me - please address my argument. I've spent 15 years in public relations and can argue about both sides of any topic, you shouldn't assume to know my heart or what "chips" I have on my body. Stick to the debate, and stop attacking the person.

George




Reply #27 By: BakerStreet - 6/10/2004 2:53:08 PM

Top 15 causes of death in 2001:

1 Diseases of heart - 700,142
2 Malignant neoplasms - 553,768
3 Cerebrovascular diseases - 163,538
4 Chronic lower respiratory diseases - 123,013
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) - 101,537
6 Diabetes mellitus - 71,372
7 Influenza and pneumonia - 62,034
8 Alzheimer ’s disease - 53,852
9 Nephritis,nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis - 39,480
10 Septicemia - 32,238
11 Intentional self-harm (suicide) - 30,622
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 27,035
13 Assault (homicide) - 20,308
14 Essential (primary)hypertension and hypertensive disease - 19,250
15 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids - 17,301

14,175 died of AIDS in 2001. Oddly, I don't see people wearing ribbons to commemorate the deaths of people who die of Influenza, Diabetes, or Alzheimer ’s disease. I doubt the average person has ever heard of Septicemia.

AIDS became a "cause" for one reason only, and it wasn't the imminent danger to the population as a whole. It was because of the immanent danger to one particular, irresponsible lifestyle. There are many innocent people with AIDS, and the their deaths lie on the hands of the people who stubbornly, homicidally spread it because of some imaginary "right" they think they have to nail anything that moves..

Blaming Reagan just shows how desperate people are to make an issue out of it, when there are vastly more important issues at hand.

BakerStreet: Again, attack my argument -not me. Get it? The argument, the debate, my remarks. Not me. "You aren't much of a student of history" is a criticism and an assumption that is neither well-informed or accurate.

I do think Reagan advanced an way of conducting the White House publicity that leveraged his power. And I think it's not fair to assume that he couldn't have wielded that same power to convince congress to act accordingly. But I think accusing me of not being a student of history is off the mark, because we both know that the will of the people changes with the wind.. it would be very difficult to say what the will of the people would have been if the issue had been more appropriately addressed by Mr. Reagan.





Reply #33 By: BakerStreet - 6/10/2004 3:16:40 PM

I wonder how congress would have reacted if Reagan had tried to shove through billions for AIDS research? I suppose there would have been overwhelming support for Reagan in 1982 if he had shoved his duties aside and put immense importance on disease that wasn't killing much of anyone, and now, 20 years later, is still way down on the mortality list.

Do you think that he could have forced the congress to do a single thing more than they did? You aren't much of a student of history if you believe so. He carried out the will of the people, which was his job. If you put a list of research funding and mortality rates in front of Americans to vote on, they'd do the same thing even today.

Americans take AIDS seriously. I have contact with an AIDS clinic, and frankly the people who take it least seriously seems to be the people who get it most often. Beat on the AIDS drum all you want, but this is a disease that people don't have to get, and don't have to spread to innocents.

On the contrary I would like to defend my friend Ronald Reagan. He was a wonderful spirit, when he was shot and was taken to hospital he said to the operating team "I hope you're all Republicans". What an immense strength of character, you Americans should celebrate him!

Hm... well, if you chose not to read my comments thats your own problem. Former President Clinton has acknowledge the failings of his policy.

I did, and I don't see how apologizing for it brings back the lives of those who died, especially since, unlike Reagan, he didn't even lift a finger. By the way, how much billions did Clinton provide to fighting heart diseases, malignant neoplasms, cerebrovascular diseases, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and other diseases that kill much more than AIDS does? If $5 billion isn't much, then I expect that number for Clinton to be more than $20 billion.

By the way, how many people did die from AIDS in its infancy?

Hold on there, who's getting sensitive now? Who got personal first? Your post is disrespectful and personal toward President Reagan , so I don't see you deserving much deference. Go read the tone of your responses to people who differed with you. If you can't handle it don't dish it out. You are the one that set the tone here.

You are also the one laying the blame for "millions of deaths" on the hands of Ronald Reagan when in actuality it is rampant irresponsible sex that causes it. If anything Ronald Reagan is the antithesis of the kind of behavior that has caused the spread of the HIV. I think you assertions about Reagan are unfounded and ignorant. You SHOULD take that personally, and stop being ignorant.

It isn't like we all wandered in here and started poking you with sticks. You made an asinine accusation and you are paying for it. You aren't much of a student of history if you think the Congress of the United States circa 1982 would have spent a single dime more than they did toward AIDS research. The President isn't the one to talk to about the final budget.

BakerStreet - 1. It's not assinine, it's documented and it's true. 2. My feelings aren't hurt, I'm a big boy and can take it. 3. My name is George not Mary. And unless you are gay and my friend, you shouldn't insult me like that, but... see # 2, I'm a big boy and I can take it. 4. I didn't say millions I was careful to say 10,000 plus, when in reality it could easily be 100, 000+ and I stand by my belief. 5. I'm not paying for anything, just because you folks think it and say it doesn't make it true. 6. "Ignorant" is yet another insult, does nothing for the debate, stop attacking me and attack the argument I make. You prove only your ability to sensibly address the agument when you resort to insults and name-calling. And me pointing that out isn't saying that my feelings are hurt - it's a fact I'm going to keep pointing out until you and others realize that the debate isn't about name calling or taking the easy way out of the debate. 7. If I'm wrong, I'm big enough to admit it. And to date, nothing I've read in this room by any of you good people gives me pause to rethink my opinions and understanding.

cheers.


Reply By: BakerStreet Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
Hold on, there mary, who's getting sensitive now? You are the only laying the blame for "millions of deaths" on the hands of Ronald Reagan when in acuality it is rampant unprotected sex that causes it. If anything Ronald Reagan is the antithesis of the kind of behavior that has caused the spread of the HIV. I think you assertiions about Reagan are unfounded and ignorant. You SHOULD take that personally, and stop being ignorant.

It isn't like we all wandered in here and started poking you with sticks. You made an assinine accusation and you are paying for it. Africa is getting an AIDS education, at the cost of millions of lives. Every few years there is some insane rumor there that you can cure your aids by raping a virgin, etc., and they keep right on spreading it. They don't want to accept the fact that they can't go on behaving as they have. AIDS in Africa is the result of their cultural habits. No amount of money is gonna change that.

Over and over, you completely ignore the fact that if people changed their habits not a single person from this day on would get AIDS. it could simply *stop*. People who have it, shouldn't spread it. People that don't ever have to put themselves at risk.

Money will not change the habits that make people ignore those two facts, because they take the risk of their own free will.

lol, nice edit of "Mary" BakerStreet... lol, but you'll note I caught it before your edit. *w*

I edited my post while you were typing yours. I figured that you would just focus on a couple of words and ignore the fact that your argument has *zero* substance.

Changes were made that should make it more palatable to you. Your point concering Reagan and AIDS is still asinine, though. No doubt you'll find whatever you can find to divert from the subject.

Nope, I disagree again with you BakerStreet - I didn't divert from the subject, just merely trying to keep you on the subject by decreasing the number of insults and derogatory remarks you make about me, not the my argument.

Do me a favor, restate what my "asinine" argument is? Let's see if you can get the point of what I've been trying to say all day? And instead of telling me its asinine, how about explaining why you think I'm wrong - without the insults.

Geo - The Reagan administration spent $5.7 BILLION on AIDS research.

And if you want to place blame on those early years, place it where it belongs - Congress which is where such projects are supposed to get started.  So your friends in the Democratic congress are at least as much to blame if not more for the big spending not occurring until later in the 80s.

I think $5.7 billion though is more than enough to have spent on a disease that affects relatively few people.

And BTW, when I say that Reagan spent billions and you accuse me of spreading lies then yes, you are calling me a liar.

Putting any blame for the AIDS epidemic on Ronald Reagan is asanine.

Which President can we blame for lung cancer, heart disease, ADHD, sickle cell disease, and depression?

Draginol, thanks for you succint and insult free remarks. 1. I don't disagree with the sum total of $5.7 billion over a period of nearly a decade. 2. I do think Reagan should at least share the blame for the lack of attention early in the disease's stage, because as we both know the Congress does generate much legislation - the President sets the tone and the priorities. More importantly, he has the world stage unlike any other individual. He was asked repeatedly by nonpartisans in the public health arena (namely the CDC) for more money for education and research in the first three years - he declined these requests. As you promisted to get more verifiable data, I will do likewise. 3. Don't you think any breakthroughs in cures we find in this country is shared world wide? Do you really think "relatively few people" is an accurate portrayal of the number of folks who have been infected, are infected daily - especially Africa?

And I apologize for calling you a liar - that was not my intent. I feel that data that is misleading or not telling the complete story is damaging. I was attacking your data, not you as a person. It's was easier for Reagan to spend hundreds of millions in the later 80s, the world had acted without government support - so there was less and less fear of backlash from his base. Again, it's the early period that I take issue with - the period that had the greatest opportunity to impact the spread.

Again, you've extrapolated that I called you a liar - and you did so in a logical way, and I'm sorry. Poor choice of words on my part.



Reply By: Draginol Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004

Geo - The Reagan administration spent $5.7 BILLION on AIDS research.

And if you want to place blame on those early years, place it where it belongs - Congress which is where such projects are supposed to get started. So your friends in the Democratic congress are at least as much to blame if not more for the big spending not occurring until later in the 80s.

I think $5.7 billion though is more than enough to have spent on a disease that affects relatively few people.

And BTW, when I say that Reagan spent billions and you accuse me of spreading lies then yes, you are calling me a liar.

"Let's not forget that it was Ronald Reagan that refused to provide funding for AIDS education 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. "

That is an asinine statement, and I have already explained why, several times. Ronald Reagan wasn't responsible for Congress's attitude toward AIDS, or the American public's attitude toward AIDS, and he had no way to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa.

He is the antithesis of the kind of lifestyle that propagates this disease, and you ignore, time and again, the fact that not a single person from this day on needs to contract HIV. If they do, it is because someone made the conscious decision to behave in a manner that could spread it. Innocent people get it, sure, but you can always trace it to someone who simply didn't care. Explain to me what Reagan could have done about all the people walking around who know they are HIV positive and opt to spread it as liberally as they can.

If I get disrespectful toward you, it is because you are being disrespectful yourself, laying the blame on someone recently deceased who doesn't deserve it. If everyone were to emulate his values, the chances of getting AIDS would be next-to-none.

Sad that people who can't accept the responsibility for the spread of the disease now are trying to blame someone who espoused a lifestyle that is the perfect defense against it. I find your argument asinine, tasteless, infantile, and sad. Personal? Maybe. True? Most certainly.

Saiyan, I chose to take your comments below as a real question... and here's the real answer. We should blame any president who was advised by his own surgeon general, public health officials and the general public at large who cried out with real solutions and suggestions - but who chose to let the horse out of the barn and run away causing rampant spread of the ailments/diseases you list below. Fair enough?

Reply By: Saiyan Robot Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
Which President can we blame for lung cancer, heart disease, ADHD, sickle cell disease, and depression?

Geo - The Reagan administration spent $5.7 BILLION on AIDS research.

I don't disagree with the sum total of $5.7 billion over a period of nearly a decade. 2. I do think Reagan should at least share the blame for the lack of attention early in the disease's stage, because as we both know the Congress does generate much legislation - the President sets the tone and the priorities

Appears that they spent more the 5.7 billion starting in 1982 through 1989 (not a decade). 8 million in 1982 was a fair chunk of change. When was AIDS discovered?

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

Saiyan, I chose to take your comments below as a real question... and here's the real answer. We should blame any president who was advised by his own surgeon general, public health officials and the general public at large who cried out with real solutions and suggestions - but who chose to let the horse out of the barn and run away causing rampant spread of the ailments/diseases you list below. Fair enough?

The same real solutions and suggestions that led to the complete destruction of HIV as we know it? I wonder what's contributing more to the decline in AIDS. Money spent on AIDS research or a change in behavior of the people.

Also, it still seems as though Clinton didn't spend at least $5 billion for each of the diseases that kills as much, if not more so, than AIDS. Therefore, I think we could blame Clinton for the deaths of a few million more.

BakerStreet, I accept that you have an opinion that my statement is asinine. I admit, it's highly charged and lacking detail - which I've tried to provide throughout the day. Just as you have added in your last comment or two that Congress bears the blame as well. I can also agree with a portion of that assertion.

I'll make you a deal, I'll increase my reading on this topic if you will. I don't think Reagan did anything NEAR what he should have and does bear some significant blame for the spread of this disease. And until I read and discover something to the contrary, I'll retain this opinion. You simply saying that my argument is asinine and sad doesn't make it so.

Your last paragraph seems to accuse me of being in a lifestyle that spreads the disease - you'd better be a tad more careful. I don't have unprotected sex. And if you are merely interested in throwing insults, we're through with this conversation. But if you'd like to debate it more, I welcome it.



Reply By: BakerStreet Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
"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. "

That is an asinine statement, and I have already explained why, several times. Ronald Reagan wasn't responsible for Congress's attitude toward AIDS, or the American public's attitude toward AIDS, and he had no way to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa.

He is the antithesis of the kind of lifestyle that propagates this disease, and you ignore, time and again, the fact that not a single person from this day on needs to contract HIV. If they do, it is because someone made the conscious decision to behave in a manner that could spread it. Innocent people get it, sure, but you can always trace it to someone who simply didn't care. Explain to me what Reagain could have done about all the people walking around who know they are HIV positive and opt to spread it as liberally as they can.

If I get disrespectful toward you, it is because you are being disrespectful yourself, laying the blame on someone recently deceased who doesn't deserve it. If everyone were we all to emulate his values, the chances of getting AIDS would be next-to-none.

Sad that people who can't accept the responsibility for the spread of the disease now are trying to blame someone who espoused a lifestyle that is the perfect defense against it. I find your argument asinie, tasteless, infantile, and sad. Personal? Maybe. True? Most certainly.