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.