The Gay community was completely educated about AIDS by the mid-eighties. Why did it continue to spread? Why is my local AIDS community almost a mirror of my local Gay community? Heterosexual sex is enormously more prevalent than Gay sex, and yet the homosexual community after 20 years is still being pounded by the disease.

So, can we really put the blame for that on Reagan? I think not. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, and no amount of education seems to be able to prevent the average lecherous pig from spreading it with impunity. You have associated yourself a number of times with the Gay community, who I think bears far, far more responsiblity for the AIDS "epidemic" than Reagan.

KarmaGirl - again, less than 10 million in the first two years, and less than 200 million in the first 3 years. The disease was discovered in 1981. If you and others who want to pile up on me on this issue think that this is not a real issue - please go read about what's happening with the population in Africa...

Good night to you all.

Can we blame Jimmy Carter for the spread of Altheimer's (spelling)? After all, how many people have died of that and I don't recall him once, during his presidency, launching a major initiative.

Can we blame Bill Clinton for the continuing problem of Heart disease? Not only did he launch no major inititiatives against it but encouraged a lifestyle that made people more likely to get it.

There is a big difference between saying Reagan could have done more to help fight against AIDS and outright blaming him for it.

BakerStreet, with what data do you claim expert knowledge of "the gay community was completely educated about AIDS by the mid-eighties." That's a pretty unsubstantiated claim there guy. It's kinda hard to educate people who don't live in urban areas, have no access to topics because they live in rural areas, there was no internet.... no, I'm gonna have to say you're wayyyy off base with the claim that the "gay community was completely educated"... goodness.

Again, with the insults. You merely point out your own inadequacies when you have to revert to name-calling, insults and assertion of superior knowledge. , you don't see why anyone is continuing this thread, yet you take the time to do likewise. My name is George, not "dude" or "poor guy". Your allegory doesn't hold water. It's merely an attempt to stereotype. Try again.



Reply By: little_whip Posted: Thursday, June 10, 2004
WoW, i dont see why anyone is continuing to waste their time on this thread, GEO is barely literate, his arguments dont hold water, and hes getting all worked up, poor guy!

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.


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.


Dude, its called an allegory. Let me make it plain, did i SAY you were talking about McDs? NO. Here, darling, let me help you.

Allegory
1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.

What i said was your victim stance was "AKIN" to those who would sue McD's for being fat, right? Let me help you again.

AKIN
1. Of the same kin; related by blood.
2. Having a similar quality or character; analogous.

In this case, ( i want to make it perfectly clear) the second definition applies.

I also wont be returning to this thread, but ts not in order to prevent you from "getting any more points" for it. The point system is overated here, and meaningless to me. I wont be returning because you obviously can neither comprehend what ive written, nor can you express your own self with any semblance of elegance, decorum, or truth.

Also, your habit of "quoting" entire responses by others is annoying, and makes the thread a pain in the ass to scroll through. DUH, we can read the same thing thats on your screen, oh wise one, a line or two from someone else's post is sufficient.

Get a clue.

What about suicide? It killed twice as many as AIDS. How many billions will Kerry put into Suicide prevention when he becomes president?

GeoATL refuses to acknoledge the fact that if you were hell-bent for leather to prevent HIV, you'd be equally damned by people who suffer from Diabetes or all the diseases that kill many, many more people than AIDS.

Just imagine the makeup of the Congress, even Democrats, circa 1982, and then try to imagine Reagan making a plea for more advocacy for the Homosexual community. It is silly. Hell, we should villify Lincoln for not advocating Gay Marriage, too, I guess.

This is what it appears to be, a desperate attempt to play-down a much deserved few days of respectful remembrance for one of the best Presidents of the last century.

So, can we really put the blame for that on Reagan? I think not. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, and no amount of education seems to be able to prevent the average lecherous pig from spreading it with impunity. You have associated yourself a number of times with the Gay community, who I think bears far, far more responsiblity for the AIDS "epidemic" than Reagan.

The fact that the number of people suffering from AIDS is higher in the gay community more to do with the fact that anal sex is more likely to cause bleeding, and during anal sex condoms are more likely to rupture, than it has to do with "lecherous pigs." It's much easier for AIDS to spread during anal sex than during vaginal intercourse. Also, just for the record, the heterosexual lifestyle is not the "perfect" defense against AIDS--though rare, there are stories of dentists giving AIDS to their patients, and others receiving it through transfusion.

That said, I don't think Reagan is to blame for AIDS.

"BakerStreet, with what data do you claim expert knowledge of "the gay community was completely educated about AIDS by the mid-eighties." That's a pretty unsubstantiated claim there guy. It's kinda hard to educate people who don't live in urban areas, have no access to topics because they live in rural areas, there was no internet.... no, I'm gonna have to say you're wayyyy off base with the claim that the "gay community was completely educated"... goodness. "

I had read about AIDS in 1980, and I was ten years old... by the mid 80's it had been aired out in every way. Granted, if there were homosexuals that lived in caves perhaps they hadn't heard of it, but it was obvious to everyone I knew what it was and how you got it.

Hell, lets say that the Gay community was educated by 1990, or 1995, fine. Why are there *still* people spreading it rampantly? Can you place the blame on Reagan and ignore the fact that this is a consciously perpetuated epidemic? I don't think the Gay community has any business laying the blame on anyone at this point.

shadesofgrey: Anal sex isn't specific to the homosexual community either. I don't think that heterosexuality is the answer to AIDS, i think monogomy and abstinance are. The "pigs" i am talking about are the ones that continue to have sex, condom or not, when they know they can spread it to their loved ones. An amazing amount of heterosexual women contract AIDS from lecherous husbands.

These are the people to point to if you want to lay blame for an AIDS "epidemic", the people that act as if asking them to stop screwing is like asking them to stop breathing. Reagan had nothing to do with that attitude, and was basically the antithesis of it.

please go read about what's happening with the population in Africa...

What does Africa have to do with this?  You are blaming Reagan for not responding to AIDS.

Yes, AIDS is a problem.  In Africa it's a problem because of their culture (gee...it's a great idea to take the wife of your brother who just died of AIDS)  But, this is not Africa.

However, people now are very aware of AIDS.  There is tons of research.  But, people still keep spreading it.  Who is to blame for that?

And, for the record- "less than 10 million in the first two years, and less than 200 million in the first 3 years."  This is the government.  How fast do you expect them to move on things?  Spending 200 million in the first 3 years is lightening fast for the feds.

I probably shouldn't enter this debate, and don't really intend to say more than these few comments, but there are a couple of things to which I'd like to respond.

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,

Hmmm. "Everyone, please send in your support. We must wipe out the horrible affliction, the evil scourge of Law Enforcement."
Sorry, couldn't resist.

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?

The problem with AIDS in Africa is an immature and superstitious culture that refuses to belief America and the scientists and doctors that are trying to help it. There is widespread belief in parts of Africa that having sex with a virgin "cures" AIDS. Millions of girls are being raped and infected as a cure, causing an exponential rise in the spread of the disease. They must come to maturity on their own. No billions from the U.S. can force them to believe the truth or act responsibly. Even if we did have a "one shot" cure or vaccination we could hardly afford to pay to vaccinate the entire world, let alone Africa, even as wealthy as we are. Africa needs to take care of its own. The world is not our responsibility (though it sure shouts us down when it thinks we ought to be giving it more money).

the christian community

That's irresponsible to lump all Christians together when you ought to know the only ones hurling such stupidity were a highly fundamentalist minority (even though some have TV shows). Most of those also apologized. So while you're defending Clinton on the grounds that he apologized, how about a little nod to the "Christian Community" that also apologized? I might add they apologized because fellow Christians put pressure on them with theological arguments to change their minds. (Yes, I know there are those like "Rev." Phelps who are still promulgating hate, but they are an ostracized little group that could hardly be termed part of any community, let alone a mythical "Christian Community.")

More importantly, he has the world stage unlike any other individual.

In my opinion that's why he couldn't have talked about AIDS much sooner. Every word that emerges from the Whitehouse (from the President to the line cook) is hung on by the entire world, replayed countless times, analyzed ad naseum. Reagan at that time did not know what AIDS was, how much of a threat it was, etc. To have sounded an alarm could have caused a needless panic. You see that type of consideration come from every administration. He was being responsible until he had the facts and knew what he was dealing with. He did act, just "not soon enough" or grand enough to make the "gay community" happy.

smartazz: well, at least your honest with that self-penned name. Black&Blue is for fallen members of the law enforcement community. But thanks for taking the opportunity to get in another dig. Culture issues aside - if there's no disease, there's nothing to spread. The lack of Reagan to use his power as president delayed elevating this horrible disease to the status of attention (funding and education) it needed to prevent further spread.

Your comment, "the world is not our respnosibility" is exactly the sentiment that scares the hell out of me. If we, the civilized, industrialized and intellectually advanced section of society do not owe a responsibility for those who are less fortunate or less capable of us - how can we profess to be Christians. "For as you have done unto the least of mine you have done unto me." Forsaking the most dire and troubling needs of the world, simply because they appaear too insurmountable doesn't seem very Christian to me. We, as a society, and I mean the whole darn planet, are only as good as the lowest common denominator. We shouldn't be focusing on ammasing personal wealth - we should be focus on bringing the lowest common denominator around the planet up!

And I do apologize for painting all christians with the same brush, but you'll forgive me if I don't have the positive attitude. Growing up in a penecostal environment - furthered by the decade after decade of being told I'm a second class citizen on my way to hell isn't exactly something that endears me to read Christian news. Frankly, I wasn't aware of any "apology" from the Christian community and would welcome any links or articles you could share. Many thanks.

BakerStreet: I'm not exactly sure how it was that you came to be educated at age 10 in 1980 - especially since the disease cause and suggested education scenarios weren't fully explored until 1981. I may have my dates mixed up, but I think yours might be a bit fuzzy as well. To suggest that because you knew, and as long as you didn't live in a "cave" (heaven help the rural people of this world with this kind of compassion) one should have been in the know. I think yours is a not a reality based understanding. I welcome you to come visit me in Atlanta. I'll take you to visit an organization that struggles every day to continue to educate young men and women on safe sex habits as well as other health related issues. I dontate my time and my money to this cause www.youthpride.org if you're interested. But back to your point as to why are there *still* cases - hell BakerStreet, why are there still STD's in general? Because new births take place and young uneducated folks practice unsafe sex. And because education funding still isn't what it should be. No doubt there are people out there who act completely irresponsibily with their sexual activity. And people in my community do not look up to them, or laud their activity. I do hope you realize that we're not all "pigs"... your use of that term tells me that you know a tad bit more about this topic than the average "bear".

Regarding some of your closing remarks, may I recommend you leave this string if you need time and space to observe more respectful remembrance of President Ronald Reagan. If you aren't capable of continuing the debate without trying to besmirk my name, just leave. Otherwise, please continue.

BakerStreet Reply: This is what it appears to be, a desperate attempt to play-down a much deserved few days of respectful remembrance for one of the best Presidents of the last century.

Correction: My apology - it appears that the use of "pigs" was not yours BakerStreet.

So GeoATL, how do you feel about Clinton, who caused millions of deaths through inaction and underfunding of research for the dozens of killer diseases out there? Would anybody calling him Hitler 2000 be wrong, since he was responsible for the deaths of at least 13 million people, especially if you count all the non-Americans who died from diseases as well?

And I'm sure that he and Reagan aren't the only two Presidents who could have spent billions more on medical research. Therefore, every President has been responsible for millions of deaths.

Regarding "respect" in general, may I suggest when you pick the day of a person's funeral to accuse them of complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, you invite the tactlessness you project..

As far as the timeline, I was 12, not ten, and the year was 1982. I went back and checked a bibliography of the magazine I had a subscription to, which ran a front page article about AIDS. By the mid 1980's it had played almost everywhere in print and on TV. I would swear that it had been mentioned in my 5th grade science class, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Here is a good timeline for your Reagan Theory: Timeline: A Brief History of AIDS/HIV.

On the one hand you say that AIDS was so well documented and understood that President Reagan could have single-handedly saved tens of thousands of lives. On the other hand you say that even by the mid-eighties that there wasn't enough play for the average bath house visitor to understand how they could get AIDS. According to the linked timeline "The Gay Mens Health Crisis " was formed in New York in 1982.

Sad kind of double standard. The guys in the midst of an AIDS panic couldn't have known about it as they saw each other wasting away, but the President responsible for the whole country should have been educated about the gay community enough to swoop in and save them from their lifestyles. Hardly.

I think the homosexual community deserves much, much more blame than sympathy with regards to the AIDS epidemic. To try and twist that blame and put it on President Reagan is sickening. I would suggest if you don't want my participation, you use the blacklist feature that JoeUser has been good enough to provide.

P.S. You are mistakenly assuming that when i talk about the wastes of skin that knowingly spread this disease that I am using the insults to refer to homosexuals. On the contrary, anyone that knowingly has sex with the understanding they could spread a fatal disease to someone else is a 'pig', and any other vile name you could call them, regardless of sexual preference.

I do, however, think there was an intolerable amount of apathy on the part of the homosexual community for one or more decades, and because of that we have many, many more cases in the US than we should.

My wife deals with AIDS patients, many of whom continue to have revolving door relationships. It is heinous and frankly murderous, and there is no term hateful or disparaging enough to describe such filth... regardless their sexual preferences. Men who visit their infeted boyfriends and girlfriends and then come home to pass it on to their wives and so on and so one.

The problem in these situations is not that president Reagan didn't make them aware of the danger 20 years ago. They are well aware of the danger now and it makes no difference to them.

I have the feeling that I may regret posting on this thread, but here we go.

GeoATL, thank you for your original post. Your point of view was interesting and one that I had not of before. I disagree with some of the points, yet the article led to discussion. Sometimes heated discussion, admittedly, but thought-provoking.

Please see http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html
It is an interesting commentary on both the Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton presidencies. The author's premise, and one that I do not necessarily agree with but I applaud the author for stating clearly, is that "the president is best situated to educate the public and to provide moral and political leadership in the face of a public health disaster." From this premise the author concludes that none of the presidents did all that they could to educate the American people. What "all that they could" means in this context is unclear to me.

AIDS is complex. It is of course a disease, but any discussion of AIDS leads to social, moral and religious issues. Put another way, AIDS is a political hot potato.

Here is a history of AIDS: http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/default.asp
Please note that the article alludes to Reagan's 1990 public service announcement as an apology for neglecting AIDS, which I think is somewhat of an overstatement. But take it with a grain of salt.
Here is another timeline that is more readable.
http://sd.essortment.com/aidshistory_rvso.htm
I worked in an acute care hospital in the Bronx, New York City, from 1980 to 1985. In 1980, we saw one of the first deaths from AIDS related symptoms. The diagosis was pneumonia, which came after the immunilogical system was too weak to defend itself. In retrospect, the cause was clear, but we didn't know the root cause then. By 1981, it was becoming clear that something was going on, but unclear as to what or how to prevent it. For example, how did Haiti figure into the equation? The spread of AIDS through shared needles was not immediately understood. We thought that we understood it, but then cases appeared that didn't fit the model. The virus was not discovered until 1983 in France. I would say in all fairness that it was not until 1983, perhaps 1984, that we really understood the disease well enough to begin any process of education.

What we could have done and when we could have done it, is murky until 1985-1986. By that time, C. Everett Koop issued a report calling for AIDS education. By 1988, the US government mails out 107 million copies of "Understanding AIDS."

Could we have done more, sooner? Maybe. In fact, I will go so far as to say probably. But the issues of dispensing condoms and needle exchange programs are volatile and I don't believe that they would have been supported before AIDS reached epidemic proportions no matter who the president was. Let me quote why I say that:

"Gay Related Immune Disorder - or GRID - was its very first name. An immune disorder it was, but gay-related? Maybe not. Drug addicts using intravenous drugs became afflicted, and they said they weren't gay. Scientists speculated that sharing needles might be a way of spreading the disease. Then, women became ill. Children. And hemophiliacs, the bleeders who needed regular blood transfusions. The disease needed a new name, and that new name was AIDS -Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome."

There is a tendancy to want to ascribe blame when something really bad happens. And the worse the event, the more likely we are to look for someone to blame. But I don't hink it fair, based on the facts of what we knew and when we knew it, to the blame on Reagan. I would offer as my final peice of support that Europe did not do a much better job of preventing the spread of AIDS than we did here in the States.

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.

Well, I don't know that AIDS funding isn't/wasn't as important...and it's not like there was NO money given....as I recall, funding began in 1985....that would be during the Reagan years.....

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?

Bravo!! This is the precise fight I've been waging on some of the message boards I frequent. People have said "Why should I say nice things about him just because he's dead, when I never like him while he was alive?" No one is asking you to say NICE things about him.....just don't say ANYTHING, and let those people who actually WILL miss him have the opportunity to mourn and grieve without having to fend off these vicious attacks!

quote]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.

I have a close relative who works for CDC in Atlanta, who is gay, who would back up all the FACTS presented...want me to contact him on it?

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.

I heard the same comment made on This Week, so I'll vouch for that one.

During the critically important early years... 1981-83 less than $200 million was spent on the disease.

I'd say that every year until a cure is found is critically important....and the funding just keeps growing......

If AIDS is God's punishment for abnomal behavior..... what was Ronald Reagan being punished for with Alzheimers?

AIDS is not God's punishment for anything....nor is Alzheimers. And as someone who has watched friends die from AIDS, and a relative from Alzheimers, I find both ideas reprehensible and disgusting.

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

It's not up to you to reign in anyone's celebration of this man's life. If you don't want to be part of it, then don't be part of it....but you have no right to expect others to stop just because you don't approve. And, as I've said before, the time of mourning is NOT the time or place to enumerate his faults....there's the rest of history to do that, but for this one week, people are--correctly--giving it a rest. Perhaps you should try it yourself!!

I guess Bush is wrong not to be spending billions yearly on ADHD research.

Gosh, as the mother of a child with severe ADHD, I guess I should be blogging about how wrong it is of him not to do that.....thanks for the idea....@@

What an immense strength of character, you Americans should celebrate him!

Many of us do, Sir Peter...that's why over a hundred thousand viewed his casket in California, and why that many more have ALREADY been to the viewing in DC, with that many more again expected before Friday morning.....

What about suicide? It killed twice as many as AIDS. How many billions will Kerry put into Suicide prevention when he becomes president?

ACK....if, if, IF....not when.....::::shudder::

My apologies, most certainly if.

.

How much I hated Reagan. Let me count the ways:-

Medieval right wing idiot;
shallow empty-headed neanderthal red in tooth and fang bullshit peddlar
empathy free-zone union basher
ignoramus
Idiot fantasist who was there at the liberation of Belsen (not) and at the assasination of Lincoln and at the crucifixion and at the resurrection (equally not)
Vile sometimes venomous little shit for brains homophobe
hypocritical draft dodging big girl's blouse
mean-spirited welfare snatcher and tree terrorist
two-faced champion of the seriously loaded
ill-educated narrow-minded pious holier-than-thou little Johnny-no-Brains
Unloving dad
Bone idle self-serving heartless tosser
Closet Mary-Ann
Hater
Bastard

Incidently, which stupid git-face cut the funding for Alzeimers Research. Beautifully ironic

---

smartazz: well, at least your honest with that self-penned name.

Thank you for agreeing that I am smart and living in Arizona. No, I know you meant it as an insult. I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is foolish to start your first contact with a person with an insult as you just did.

Black&Blue is for fallen members of the law enforcement community.

Your thesis was "other ribbons for other diseases." Half your supporting evidence was "Black & Blue is Law Enforcement." I simply pointed out that Law Enforcement is hardly a disease. "Fallen members of the law enforcement community" also aren't a disease. Care to try again?

But thanks for taking the opportunity to get in another dig.

A) It wasn't a dig. Let alone "another" dig. I have never had any contact with you before. That is solely your interpretation. You however did take a dig at me. Does that mean I am justified in heaping abuse on you?

The lack of Reagan to use his power as president delayed elevating this horrible disease to the status of attention (funding and education) it needed to prevent further spread.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread this simply isn't the case. I'd refute it, but all anyone needs do is scroll up.

Culture issues aside - if there's no disease, there's nothing to spread.

But there is a disease. Your argument might hold some weight if post-Reagan the funding were raised and a cure found. Then you could say, "See what Reagan did! These people died when they could have been cured if only he had supported it!" I'd even agree with you. However there is a disease. Reagan didn't create it. And all the king's horses and all the king's men since haven't been able to stop it either. Cultural issues aren't aside, because it is the beliefs of the culture and the actions resulting from those beliefs that spread the disease. Different culture -- less to no disease.

Your comment, "the world is not our responsibility" is exactly the sentiment that scares the hell out of me.

You simply can't force people to be enlightened or to help themselves. Take it out of the macro and look at it from a micro viewpoint. Person-to-person people have to want help. Ultimately people have to help themselves. Take an alcoholic. You can give them all the education in the world, make available all the help and programs in the world, but ultimately they have to want it for themselves, work for it themselves, and ultimately obtain it for themselves. So it is on a national level. We could pour out ourselves totally into Africa, use all our natural resources, bankrupt ourselves for them, and in the end they would end up exactly the same, just like the drunk forced to "go dry." (And they and the world at large would probably find a way to hate us and blame us for it.) There is only so much those on the outside can do.

As for the rest of that paragraph, isn't that in part the rational used to invade Iraq? We have to help those people? We have to save them from a despot and bring them liberty and freedom? As an avowed liberal, I don't think you would agree with those actions, yet the case can be made off the same "For as you have done unto the least of mine you have done unto me" rational, the same "(not) Forsaking the most dire and troubling needs of the world, simply because they appear too insurmountable" rational.

You have to take care of you and your own first. Then you can give as much help as you can to others as long as you don't overly harm or destroy yourself or those in your care. We can offer no further help to the world if we run ourselves into the ground trying to help the world.

Frankly, I wasn't aware of any "apology" from the Christian community and would welcome any links or articles you could share.

It would be more helpful to see the individuals involved than this "Community" focus. If you'll excuse it, it seems to me you have trouble "seeing the trees for the forest." I have heard and/or seen that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Hal Lindsey (sp?) all apologized for their "AIDS is punishment" remarks. Frankly I was so incensed when I heard Lindsey say that I have strongly disliked him and discounted most everything he said ever since. (Actually I don't have a very high view of any of those three. The first two are at times the fundamentalist equivalent of PETA, making outlandish statements for the sake of publicity.)

I briefly looked for links but the only ones I could find are from those still using the quotes against them. The problem is, once these guys have issued their apologies they tend to completely distance themselves, not even leaving the apologies where they can be seen. That's probably a bad move. It just leaves them open to the ongoing criticism without any defense. It's too bad they don't come out against their remarks as strongly as they made them to begin with.

There are "mainstream" denominations that support homosexuality and others that, while not endorsing it, accept it and are far from the scorched Earth philosophy of "AIDS is God's punishment." Do you lump them into "the Christian Community?" Those who made such comments are rightly condemned. To condemn an entire group for comments made by members of that group is, to me, bigotry.

This is great. A President Reagan bashing.
Show a little respect for your leader... and for the dead!!
Were you even alive when he was president?

At least he wasn't a peanut farmer. ( who you probably voted or would vote for )
At least he didn't disgrace the Oval Office. ( who you probably voted or would vote for )

He made us all "like" ourselves and our country again. For that he was great.
For single handedly causing the collapse of the USSR, he was great.
Shall we go on?

If you're having such a hard time with this, why don't you put your money where your
mouth is and run for President??
Could you do a better job?? I personally don't think so, as usually, people that shoot off
at the mouth, are just a mouse and not a man.

He was a great man, and nobody, NOBODY, said he was Perfect.
Maybe you're having a hard time with this because you're jealous.
Maybe you're unhappy with the way things are going now.
Like we said, if you can do any better, get the hell in there and
show us what ya got, eh??

No one is saying he was perfect. You should know that only God, is perfect.

President Reagan was a GREAT man however!!

If you think you can do a better job, put your money where your mouth is
and run for President.

Otherwise, quit mis-interpreting, and quit complaining.

At least Reagan was not a peanut farmer.
At least Reagan did not disgrace the oval office.

He was a man of respect, a man of honor and could even make fun of
himself. Hmmmm, he even made us feel good about ourselves and our
country again. Sounds like a great man to me.

No one is saying he was perfect. You should know that only God, is perfect.

President Reagan was a GREAT man however!!

If you think you can do a better job, put your money where your mouth is
and run for President.

Otherwise, quit mis-interpreting, and quit complaining.

At least Reagan was not a peanut farmer.
At least Reagan did not disgrace the oval office.

He was a man of respect, a man of honor and could even make fun of
himself. Hmmmm, he even made us feel good about ourselves and our
country again. Sounds like a great man to me.