"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.

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.