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.

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.