Ronald Wilson Reagan

As you probably read on the news, Ronald Reagan died from complications with pneumonia at a good age of 93 today. I just wanted to start a thread in honor of him, since likely many of you grew up and went through interesting times with him in presidency. Despite anyone's political leanings, most would agree that he was a great man who was dedicated, caring, and strong in his principle and stance.

I was really sad when I heard the news. I know he lived a long life of stardom and politics, with a charisma and genuineness rarely seen in those circles. Some of the most poignant memories for me at least involve world issues in which he was eloquent and comforting.

So hats off to a great president, he was an awesome american.

Alzheimer's is a slow, corrosive, horrible way to end such a life. Few people truly "deserve" such a fate, but Reagan least amongst any. The only consolation is that least he finally attained some measure of peace again.

This is certainly a sad day.

Much like a rare few, Reagan rose above anything ever said against him. Its not often a president comes to the plate who has the charisma to lead the country, he definately fit the bill. I only wish we could find another one of those for our age.

No matter if one was a Democrat, Republican, Communist, whatever . . . he was a great man and I hope he lives free of his illness now.

R.I.P. Ronaldus Magnus :(

May dear Ronnie meet up with all the souls of AIDS victims who died during his term in office. 8 years passed as the epidemic grew and he kept silent on the subject.

What a total piece of shit post. People do good things, and people fuck up (both can be quite subjective, especially in the case of a president). When they die, you try to focus on the good stuff. Your post is the equivalent of interrupting the eulogy of a friend to bitch about the time he cheated in poker.

I have been to more funerals than a person my age should. Yeah, he may have done some good things. But he wasn't a saint. Millions have died because he refused to utter a single word about this disease that was labeled "gay pneumonia" when it first started. As a result, so many in Africa and other undeveloped countries are now suffering when this disease could've had research started 8 years earlier.

This is MY memory of Ronald Reagan and the results of his actions, with tears streaming down my face as yet another person died who in the end looked wasted, with brain damage, pneumonia, green gook growing in their throats. My memory of having to comfort the survivors, telling them it's not their fault they didn't catch the disease but their lovers did.

Cheating in poker???? HAH! As ACT UP said, SILENCE = DEATH!

If you've been to so many funerals, then somewhere along the line you should have learned some decency. I don't have strong feelings about Reagan one way or the other, and whether you're justified in your bitching isn't even the question. It just reeks of poor taste to toss your sour two cents onto a body that's barely cold.

I realize that my lashing out is equally out of place in such a thread, so perhaps I can't say much :P. My apologies to the other readers for sucking the thread off course.

Reagan proves an actor can be president. That's what I'll remember him for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
I have been to more funerals than a person my age should. Yeah, he may have done some good things. But he wasn't a saint. Millions have died because he refused to utter a single word about this disease that was labeled "gay pneumonia" when it first started. As a result, so many in Africa and other undeveloped countries are now suffering when this disease could've had research started 8 years earlier.

This is MY memory of Ronald Reagan and the results of his actions, with tears streaming down my face as yet another person died who in the end looked wasted, with brain damage, pneumonia, green gook growing in their throats. My memory of having to comfort the survivors, telling them it's not their fault they didn't catch the disease but their lovers did.

Cheating in poker???? HAH! As ACT UP said, SILENCE = DEATH!

---

Unfortunately, this is a VERY common viewpoint in the "gay community" and a good example of that can be seen at the gay news site gaytoday.com by clicking here (Disclaimer: this news site has some risque banner ads)

I don't know what to make of it all. Part of my disagreement with the demonization of Reagan might be my relatively young age. Then too, I don't really see AIDS survivori advocacy as a gay rights issue, and in fact, would much rather the two were NOT so closely linked, especially since the typical victim on the AIDS war front is a poor african tribal woman, not an American gay man. In any event, I don't understand how Reagan can be blamed for singlehandedly killing so many bright young men, when for one thing, he neither CREATED the AIDS virus, nor did he prohibit research. I wonder if research dollars had been diverted from other causes, which cause would you pick? Breast Cancer, perhaps? Yes, I suppose that you can pick a bunch of pork barrel projects and slash them all, giving more money for AIDS research, but we can ALWAYS do that, even during the Clinton years. I just don't get the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
Unfortunately, this is a VERY common viewpoint in the "gay community" and a good example of that can be seen at the gay news site gaytoday.com by clicking here (Disclaimer: this news site has some risque banner ads)

---

I don't know who started it, but it seems to be a myth, Andrew Sullivan, a gay man with HIV who has a fairly popular blog (go blogs!) on the subject:

REAGAN AND AIDS: I have been upbraided for not mentioning Ronald Reagan's AIDS legacy in describing him as my hero. The basic argument from the gay left is that Reagan was single-handedly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people by negligence. This, however, borders on loopy. Reagan should indeed be faulted for not doing more to warn people of the dangers of infection early enough (Thatcher was far better). But the truth is that it was pretty obvious very early on that something dangerous was afoot as AIDS first surfaced. Just read Larry Kramer at the time. Many people most at risk were aware - mostly too late, alas - that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing "And The Band Played On," to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished. As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms - not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after. Yes, the Congress was critical in this. But by 1986, Reagan had endorsed a large prevention and research effort and declared in his budget message that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services." In September 1985, Reagan said:

"Including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."

But the sad truth is also that there was never going to be an easy answer to HIV in the Reagan years. Throwing even more money at research in those days would not have helped much. Anthony Fauci's NIH, goaded by heroes like Larry Kramer, was already pushing for focus and resources; FDA red tape was loosened considerably; and the painfully slow scientific process continued. The fact that we got revolutionary drugs in trials by the early 1990s was itself an heroic scientific achievement - arguably the most miraculous progress in a medical emergency since the polio vaccine. Should Reagan have done more? Yes. Were people like Bill Bennett and Gary Bauer responsible for delaying a real prevention response because only gays were dying? You bet. But was Reagan ultimately responsible for so many tragic, early deaths? No. HIV was. Viruses happen. It's a blemish on his record, but not as profound as some, with understandable grief, want to make it out to be.

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...67202656741224

More of his thoughts on Reagan and gays here (you might have to scroll around some):

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...66721681460437

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
May dear Ronnie meet up with all the souls of AIDS victims who died during his term in office. 8 years passed as the epidemic grew and he kept silent on the subject.

---

This is absolute hate speech that is no better than fag bashers who drag homosexuals behind their pickup trucks.

I imagine if you had a little more time to think about your post and if you knew more about Ronald Reagan and AIDS in the 1980s you probably wouldn't be so fast to vomit forth such false propaganda.

Ronald Reagan was not responsible for AIDS. It is totally absurd to put the blame on him for it.

Are you aware that the entirety of human civilization has never cured a *SINGLE* virus?

Which President(s) do we blame for the failure to cure the common cold?

Which President(s) do we blame for the failure to cure cancer?

Which President(s) do we blame for the failure to cure heart disease?

Those things kill a lot more people than HIV/AIDS. Who do we blame for that?

As Graeblyn said, which other deadly ailment will you pull research dollars away from?

AIDS/HIV research already gets a disproportionate amount of dollars per death compared to countless other ailments. Is that right? Is that fair? The only reason it happens is because of the politicization of this *ONE* ailment.

Do you expect a President to solve every single problem that exists, predict every single problem on the horizon, and find every single problem lurking behind the scenes, and resolve them all?

The Cold War was a far more severe problem in the 1980s than AIDS.

The threat of communism was a far more severe problem in the 1980s than AIDS.

Stagflation was a far more severe problem in the 1980s than AIDS. If it weren't for the economic boom Reagan ushered in how much money would there have been for AIDS research? Not much.

I hope you realize that the market boom of the 1980s is what generated the capital investment in our amazing biotech and pharmeceutical companies that now produce the HIV/AIDS treatments that are preventing the onset of AIDS and allowing HIV infected people to live long, productive lives post-diagnosis.

Blaming AIDS deaths on Ronald Reagan would be like blaming Hurricane Andrew on George Bush, Sr.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
This is absolute hate speech that is no better than fag bashers who drag homosexuals behind their pickup trucks.

---

I debated responding to this, after all, Sioubisae is a big girl, and presumably doesn't need me to jump in on her behalf. However, you DID invoke my name elsewhere in this vile post, so I AM going to respond just to the point above.

Although I don't agree with the criticisms Sioubisae made against Reagan's legacy, to say criticizing a dead president is no "better" than expressing hatred towards someone who is different then yourself in such a cruel, sadistic manner as to tie them to the back of a pickup truck and drag them to their death is truly disgusting. The vileness of your sentiment is only compounded by your continued insistence on referring to such hate crimes as "fag bashing" rather then "gay bashing." I acknowledge you aren't homophobic yourself, but you seem all too willing to take advantage of homphobia when it will serve your purposes in an argument. I remember all the excuses you posited the time you did this very same thing, but directed at me, rather then Sioubisae. If you want to rehash them all again, that is certainly your choice, but it won't change my mind any more then it did the last time. Unless Sioubisae were endorsing torturing President Reagan to death because he was straight, you would have no point at all, and even then, there is STILL no excuse to invoke vile words like "fag" in your post.

My first post just said I hope he meets up with all those souls.

During the years of 1978-1985, AIDS was pegged as a gay disease. As more and more fell, and it was realized by both the medical community as well as the gay community how widespread this could become, they started to urge the president to just "legitimize" the whole situation by giving AIDS credence. Instead, he kept silent on the whole issue, PAVING (not making) the road for other politicians to either ignore the disease or just paint it as just a gay disease.

Even in California, legistlature were appear on ballots that basically wanted anyone who even tested for AIDS to be confined to a specific community so this wouldn't spread.

Compare the lack of news on AIDS between 1978-1985 to SARS. yes, we're in a faster informational age right now but 1978-1985 wasn't the dark ages either.

You all are looking at the results of hard work by AIDS foundations and entertainers working hard to spread the word about aids, which is why AIDS has the largest budget now.

None of you can imagine being in a roomfull of dying people, all waiting for the president of THEIR country to give them some sort of acknowledgement. We watched his speeches like we would watch Dynasty.

My anger is at that. That millions of his countrymen were dying and he never acknowledged that the disease existed. I just want those dead souls to teach him Yes, Ronnie, there IS such a thing as AIDS.

Graeblyn, savaging and defaming an innocent man's reputation when he has just died is hate speech. There is nothing vile about comparing it to the people who engage in hate speech and hate crimes against homosexuals. Such behavior is loathsome no matter who it is directed at.

You need to re-read the context of my use of the term "fag bashing." I'm talking about the people who engage in that behavior and call it that themselves. You used the word "fag' in your post. Does that make your post "vile"? Nope. If a bunch of White Power morons were chanting "DIE NIGGERS" would the news media be "vile" for playing a recording of them saying it? Of course not. It is exactly the same thing.

It is THEIR term, not mine, and that is why it was used in that context.

There is nothing "vile" at all about the comparison. Trying to destroy the reputation of great men or women who loved their country and did great things for their country discourages OTHER great men or women in the future from devoting themselves to serving and improving the country. The costs of that are enormous. It is a big reason we have such a pathetic corps of politicians these days. The good people don't want to suffer this kind of indignity.

I would argue that destroying the reputations of great patriots and thereby discouraging other people from serving their country is at LEAST as harmful and heinous as murdering and torturing a single person.

It is absolutely absurd to blame Ronald Reagan for even a SINGLE death to HIV/AIDS.

There are countless other severe ailments that are far more deadly which CANNOT be avoided through lifestyle choices (not using drugs and not having casual, unprotected sex). When it comes to cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. you have no such simple options for avoidance.

It is absolutely ridiculous and hateful to blame a President for deaths to a virus he had absolutely no control over. Even the criticism that he was "slow" to push for funding is ridiculous. You can armchair quarterback all day long but the reality is that there were FAR MORE IMPORTANT issues the country had to deal with at that time and in the end, Reagan pushed for and obtained over $8 billion in funding for HIV/AIDS research.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
Compare the lack of news on AIDS between 1978-1985 to SARS. yes, we're in a faster informational age right now but 1978-1985 wasn't the dark ages either.

---

Compared to now it was definitely the dark ages. The WWW was invented in 1991. It was not widely used until the late 1990s. You absolutely cannot compare the spread of information now to anything pre-WWW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
You all are looking at the results of hard work by AIDS foundations and entertainers working hard to spread the word about aids, which is why AIDS has the largest budget now.

---

Then those are the people to blame for an unfair and disproportionate amount of time and money being devoted to AIDS/HIV instead of other ailments that kill a lot more people- ailments that are UNAVOIDABLE whereas HIV/AIDS is mostly avoidable (the exception being people who get it through blood transfusions).

It is completely outrageous how many members of and groups from the gay community act like HIV/AIDS is some magically special ailment that deserves 1000 times more attention than cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, or every other major life threatening disaster. It deserves an amount of funding proportional to the number of deaths, the avoidability of the ailment, and the prospects for successfully curing it- not more.

It doesn't deserve a higher percentage simply because a single group of people are able to make the biggest political stink about it and hold people's feet to the fire if they don't make it their top priority.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
None of you can imagine being in a roomfull of dying people, all waiting for the president of THEIR country to give them some sort of acknowledgement. We watched his speeches like we would watch Dynasty.

My anger is at that. That millions of his countrymen were dying and he never acknowledged that the disease existed. I just want those dead souls to teach him Yes, Ronnie, there IS such a thing as AIDS.

---

Anyone doing the above needs to get off their self-important high horse.

There are a lot of problems in any country that get solved whether or not the President addresses them specifically.

There were FAR more important issues in the 1980s than *ONE* ailment. Please stop acting like it was the most important thing and that the only way any progress could be made would be if the President made it a priority.

You are expecting a level of omniscience from President Reagan that is unfair to demand and totally irrational. It is absolutely disgusting that you are holding Ronald Reagan personally responsible for something that was not even .0000000001% his fault.

It is really sad that the BEST one can do to blame Reagan for this is to say worthless things like "well, he could have at least acknowledged it in his speeches."

Give me a break. He DID acknowledge it. He spent $8 billion dollars on it! The best one can do is complain that he could have done things sooner but that's irrational hindsight.

Someone could have put a bullet in Osama Bin Laden's head at age 3 but how the hell could anyone know what he would become?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
My first post just said I hope he meets up with all those souls.

During the years of 1978-1985, AIDS was pegged as a gay disease.

---

Sometime hindsight is 20/20 and a President is a leader, a leader makes choices based on information they HAVE AT THE TIME. I really feel like you have passed judgment on Pres. Reagan for knowledge that you personally possess, and that medical doctors possess, now looking back to that point in time. It's wrong to do that. There is no way Pres. Reagan could possibly have known then what we know now. So because of that it does appear that your statement was incredibly cruel, harsh, and uncalled for mudslinging.

You can't blame Pres. Reagan for those that died from AIDS. Unless I am wrong, for the most part AIDS is transmitted willingly through sexual intercourse. This involves heterosexuals just as it involves homosexuals.

Quote:

---

Compare the lack of news on AIDS between 1978-1985 to SARS. yes, we're in a faster informational age right now but 1978-1985 wasn't the dark ages either.

---

Ok, again, we're living in a completely different era. This is going to sound harsh but Pres. Reagan had other important things to deal with and the people focusing on AIDS really had no clue what was going on or where it was coming from. You can NOT blame the failure of the entire scientific and medical community on him, that's just not fair but it's what you've done by saying that somehow he has caused more people to die.

hmm then a question.

We can attribute all these things to one man: having a booming economy during the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall (read any eulogy praising him and you will see examples).

Yet we cannot say that because a leader of the country didn't set an example by the verbal acknowledgement of such a disease, the silence led to a tacit acceptance that since it's a gay disease, why bother telling people or throw money at it? That instead, the best way to deal with this is to lock the ones who test away?

Kudos to the American public who DIDN'T vote this type of legislature into being. However, living during that era, it was really scary realizing a form of McCarthyism was raising its head and the president didn't care enough to address it (or worse, thought the people it affected wasn't his constituents anyway so why bother).

I am not trying to destroy Reagan's legacy. I just have never been a believer in whitewashing after death. My dead friends taught me this lesson, that laughing at someone's foibles after they're dead is an okay deed because all my friends wanted to be known for who they were. There's plenty of other who want to praise Reagan. Let them be his voice.

This is quickly devolving and will continue to devolve into a political and moral discussion that gets away from the main point of the post.

Siou, you aren't seeing the point.

Ronald Reagan gets credit for those things because those were the most important things affecting our country at the time and those were the issues he was voted into office to deal with.

AIDS/HIV was a totally unknown and not understood ailment that appeared suddenly with no warning.

We voted Reagan into office to fix the economy and fight the Cold War. He did that and did it brilliantly.

The booming economy he played a major role in creating was the driving force behind the amazing growth of our pharmeceutical and biotech industries- the same industries that eventually developed the various drug "cocktails" that make HIV/AIDS a more surviveable ailment.

Tragedies happen all the time. To single out the PRESIDENT for blame simply because something bad began during his administration is outrageous and hateful.

The threat of communism, the Cold War, and the economy were the most important issues of the 1980s. Trying to deny that is wrongheaded and is evidence of warped priorities.

Of course, a lot of people also think AIDS/HIV should get more research dollars than cancer and heart disease. That's warped too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Siou, you aren't seeing the point.

---

I admit that during the 80's up to the mid-90's, I was almost totally in Gay Ghetto and that my views are shaped by the events that hit my community.

Nonetheless, I don't think you all understand what it was like in our community during the late 70's to mid-80's, things like our official greeting turning into "Have you gotten tested lately?" or watching 225 pound men turn into 110 lb weaklings or having a cold and being scared to go outside your door cause you don' t know which of your neighbors might have AIDS and die from germs carried by you.

When the world is crumbling around you, you want someone, especially the leader of your country to acknowledge it.

And sorry, I think the fall of (western) communism had a lot more to do with the ill-picked wars they had, with the arms race, with the corruption in their government, rather than Reagan. But, if we're going to give him that credit, then I get to blame him for tacitly giving the signal it's okay to lock gays up. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
I admit that during the 80's up to the mid-90's, I was almost totally in Gay Ghetto and that my views are shaped by the events that hit my community.

---

The job of the President isn't to comfort and cater to every group in the nation. There is a huge staff and network of people to handle the various issues that come up. Only the biggest issues get Presidential attention. Just because that was your biggest issue doesn't mean it was the biggest issue for the nation. It is selfish in my opinion to expect the leader of one of the largest nations in the world to address your issue. Sometimes life sucks, and sometimes it sucks alot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae (emphasis added)
And sorry, I think the fall of (western) communism had a lot more to do with the ill-picked wars they had, with the arms race, with the corruption in their government, rather than Reagan. But, if we're going to give him that credit, then I get to blame him for tacitly giving the signal it's okay to lock gays up. :D

---

I'm not a huge history buff, but I think Reagan had a small role in the arms race, and in my opinion the arms race was the biggest factor in the fall of communism.

It might be good to move much of this thread to a new thread, as we're horribly off topic now...

Federally funded needle exchange programs have significantly reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS without increasing the number of intravenous drug users. Countries which have had a long established NEP have HIV infection rates due to IDU's of less than 8%. Additionally, the cost of supplying a free needle exchange program is significantly less than the life time treatment of a person living with HIV. Of the 849,778 people reported to have HIV/AIDS in the US in 2002, 209,919 were exposed to the virus by intravenous drugs. This is at a minimum 3 times the rate of infection of countries using NEPs.

Countries such as England, the Netherlands and Australia have HIV infection rates at least ten times less than that of the United States. It is telling that these three countries (for which I have included some time line information below) were aggressive in introducing education campaigns (including safe sex, and not just abstinence), control of the blood supply and NEP's very early on. The record shows that public officials in these three countries, and many others, fully recognized the danger that AIDs represented at least as early as 1983.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Reagan and his government were blind to a danger that other western countries were very aware of and actively combating. The Reagan administration either lacked foresight, or was not prepared to risk the political difficulties of supporting safe gay sex and needle exchange programs, positions he was otherwise ideologically opposed.

Australia:
1983: May 17 - Aids is declared a notifiable disease in Victoria
1983: July 12 - Australian Health Minister speaks out against AIDS hysteria
1984:
- Australian Health minister states: "We face one of the most serious public health problems this country has faced since federation…".
- National Advisory Council on AIDS (NACAIDS) is formed.
- Blood Supply Tested for HIV
- Government Education campaign established.
1985:
- End of year saw 173 diagnosed cases
1987:
- Needle Exchange Program established.
- End of year saw 769 reported cases, 417 of these died.
1988:
- Condoms campaign promoted.

England:
1983: High Risk people asked not to donate blood
1984: 108 cases, 46 deaths
1986:
- Feb Needle Exchange Scheme Started.
- Government Education campaign started

Netherlands:
1984: Needle exchange program established

US:
1981: Deaths during year: 128
1982:
- Reports that disease was occurring in Haitians and hemophiliacs.
- A number of AIDS organizations were producing safer sex advice for gay men.
- 452 Cases from 23 states reported to CDC by July
- End of year saw 1285 cases. Deaths during year: 460
1983:
- Reported that Aids could be passed on from men to women
- Officers in SF began wearing rubber gloves.
- End of year saw 3064 cases. Deaths during year: 1505
1984:
- End of year saw 7899 cases. Deaths during year: 3498
1985:
Sep 17th: First mention of Aids by Reagan:
"It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, 'This we know for a fact, that it is safe.'' And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it."
- End of year saw 15,948 cases. Deaths during year: 6792.
1986:
-AZT (a drug developed for cancer) becomes available as treatment for AIDS
- Deaths during year: 12,077
1987:
- Reagan’s first major speech. He states that he would support an education campaign... "as long as they teach that one of the answers to it is abstinence - if you say it's not how you do it, but that you don't do it."
- June - AIDS listed as disease that can exclude people from USA.
- 47022 cases reported. Deaths during year: 16,358
1988:
- May - Launch HIV/AIDS education campaign by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
- Congress prohibits the use of federal funds to support Needle Exchange programs.
- Deaths during year: 21,074
1990:
Estimated HIV and Aids cases in the US: 1 million and 200k
Estimated HIV and Aids cases in the World: over 9 million and over 1 million.
2003:
Estimated Aids deaths in the US since 1981: 465,910
Estimated Aids deaths in the world since 1981: 2.18 million

Ronald Reagan must have given my mom cancer, too.

I think it was Reagan's fault I broke my arm in the 4th grade, and I know he is responsible for my appendicitis. I think he broke up me and my first girlfriend, and gave me an F in science class.

Why is it somehow a horrible, immoral thing to criticise someone just because they are recently dead? I agree that no one should be picketing Regan's funeral or butting in to his loved one's mourning to grill them about the man's AIDS policies. That would be immoral because of the pain it would cause to the people who had a strong personal relationship with the man. However, no matter how much you may respect or even revere him, no one here has a personal relationship with him. This isn't a forum of mourning, not a wake or a memorial. It's a web forum for political discussion, and political discussions get, well, political.

If Siou's criticisms of Regan's policies were valid 1 year ago, when he was alive, or 5 years from now when he's been long dead, they are valid today. If they are invalid, they are not invalid because he's dead but on their own lack of merit. Discuss them on that basis, not on the basis that the recently-dead are somehow above criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I personally believe it was his hatred of homosexuals as the reason for him not acting sooner.

---

That's just not true.

In 1977. Anti-gay forces in California pushed what was called, the Briggs Initiative. The proposal would have prevented gay people from teaching in California public schools. Ronald Reagan's public opposition to the Briggs Initiative helped lead to its defeat.

Reagan was the first President to have a gay couple stay as overnight guests in the Lincoln Bedroom.

The reason for him not acting sooner is that it simply wasn't a priority to him. Bear in mind we were ALREADY so far into deficit spending that critics were regularly lambasting the administration.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Serith
Ronald Reagan must have given my mom cancer, too.

I think it was Reagan's fault I broke my arm in the 4th grade, and I know he is responsible for my appendicitis. I think he broke up me and my first girlfriend, and gave me an F in science class.

---

Hear Hear!
Which president should we blame for not telling us the dangerous risks of smoking? Shame on them!


And I would like to add that I will miss Ronald Reagan. He was a great president and just a great person.

Also, I would like to say, Nancy!!! Wow! You are such a strong woman!!! What a caring and loving wife she made. Bless this woman's soul! Alzheimer's is a horrible disease and it just doesn't effect the victim but the love ones too. My best friend's mom died of Alzheimer's very young. She was only in her 50's. She progressively got worse until she couldn't remember how to eat or how to breathe. To have someone that you've loved for so many years just not recognize you has to be horrible.

Bless this poor woman! Our hearts and thoughts are there for her. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
This isn't a forum of mourning, not a wake or a memorial. It's a web forum for political discussion, and political discussions get, well, political.

---

This particular thread was obviously not started to debate these sorts of things. It is in the political section because he is a political figure. It would have been better to start a seperate thread. I know when I pulled up the thread I really didn't expect or want to read negative things about Reagan. It is typically considered rude to speak ill of the recently departed, but it is even more so to do it among those trying to focus on the positive things.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xar
As you probably read on the news, Ronald Reagan died from complications with pneumonia at a good age of 93 today. I just wanted to start a thread in honor of him, since likely many of you grew up and went through interesting times with him in presidency. So hats off to a great president, he was an awesome american.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gadiantor
This particular thread was obviously not started to debate these sorts of things. It is in the political section because he is a political figure. It would have been better to start a seperate thread. I know when I pulled up the thread I really didn't expect or want to read negative things about Reagan. It is typically considered rude to speak ill of the recently departed, but it is even more so to do it among those trying to focus on the positive things.[/B]

---

Thank you! I think the other stuff should be moved to a new thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
That's just not true.

In 1977. Anti-gay forces in California pushed what was called, the Briggs Initiative. The proposal would have prevented gay people from teaching in California public schools. Ronald Reagan's public opposition to the Briggs Initiative helped lead to its defeat.

Reagan was the first President to have a gay couple stay as overnight guests in the Lincoln Bedroom.

The reason for him not acting sooner is that it simply wasn't a priority to him. Bear in mind we were ALREADY so far into deficit spending that critics were regularly lambasting the administration.

---

Thank you Graeblyn, for being the voice of reason in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Thank you Graeblyn, for being the voice of reason in this thread.

---

OH! I forgot to mention the additions Reagan made to protections GLBT employees of the federal government get. Those protections were kept by Bush ONE and (of course) Clinton, but Bush TWO has already been working very hard to get those protections repealed.

Furthermore, how could anyone who "hated gays" ever get elected President of the Screen Actors Guild- even back in the 60s.

The recent gutter swill movie, "The Reagans", tried to paint Reagan as a hater of gays and the creators were widely ridiculed for such absurdity. They could not provide any basis or evidence for ANY of their defamatory portrayals. It is simply a spurious and hateful claim.

To get back on the topic in general:

A lot of people forget the climate of the world in the 1980s. It was believed that Communism and the Soviet Union were permanent fixtures. The West's political strategy was known as "detente" (a term coined by Nixon and Kissinger) which was basically an effort to do nothing more than work to ease tensions between the superpowers and be on the lookout for opportunities to improve relations.

The fear of nuclear war and/or Soviet invasion was enormous. Most of our parents vividly remember frequent drilling in schools to prepare for a nuclear attack. They remember the mass construction of bomb shelters. They remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. They remember the building of the Berlin Wall.

Even when I was a kid we had periodic "bomb drills" whenever tensions between the USA and the USSR got elevated.

It had become totally accepted the the Soviet/Communistic threat would always exist and that we just had to learn to deal with it.

Ronald Reagan was the first leader of any significance to reject that idea. He rejected the thought that a system of such incredible oppression should be simply tolerated. He believed, deep in his heart, that any system based on such evil principles was rotten at its core- and therefore weak.

His greatest accomplishment is sharing this belief with not just the USA but with the entire free world, and making them believe in it too. He then turned that belief into reality by winning the Cold War, defeating communism, and toppling the Soviet Union.

Every presidential historian I have ever read or seen on television agrees that Presidents generally have 2 or 3 main goals for their presidency and that is truly all they can hope to accomplish. The day to day activities of the government are handled by the enormous bureaucracy. A President has to focus on BIG IDEAS and work to accomplish them.

Ronald Reagan's main goals were:

1) Bring down the Evil Empire (USSR) and crush communism.

2) Repair the USA economy by cutting taxes and letting people keep more of their money (the top marginal rate was 70% when he came into office).

Those are 2 ENORMOUSLY ambitious goals. Miraculously, he accomplished both of them.

I am sure that even Ronald Reagan wished he could have solved every single problem that plagued the USA during his 2 terms. But a President can only do so much, and the things he did accomplish were of enormous import.

Two of the biggest things he is blamed for not "solving" are HIV/AIDS and poverty. I find this to be incredibly absurd since NOBODY has ever solved these problems ANYWHERE.

As a species and a civilization, we score a big fat ZERO for number of virii cured. So why is there such an irrational expectation that we should suddenly be able to cure HIV?

As a species and a civilization, poverty has been a constant affliction.

These two perennial problems have one thing in common: When/if they are ever solved, they will be solved by science.

Some sort of miraculous scientific breakthrough (nanobots perhaps?) will ne needed to defeat virii. Another sort of scientific breakthrough (synthetic foods? teleportation?) will be required to defeat poverty. I do not think anything any politician does will ever be able to significantly impact either of those ills.

All I know is it is sad when anyone dies be it from AIDS or Alzheimers, or old age.. what have you. We are all humans, we all make mistakes in our lives. I am not condoning what anyone has done on either side, despite the fact that I am a liberal democrat. Hatred in any form, in my opinion, is wrong. Hating gays for being what they are or hating the President for not doing what he should have done. Perhaps I am idealistic, but hey.. that is just me. I hope that Ronald Reagan rests in peace as do the millions of people that have died from AIDS or any of the other atrocities that our world comes up with.

Quote:

---

Two of the biggest things he is blamed for not "solving" are HIV/AIDS and poverty. I find this to be incredibly absurd since NOBODY has ever solved these problems ANYWHERE

---

I don't blame him for not solving AIDS in his 8 year residency at the White House.
I blame him for his inaction when so many other countries saw how important this disease was to research.

Again, he could've acted sooner, he decided not to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I don't blame him for not solving AIDS in his 8 year residency at the White House.
I blame him for his inaction when so many other countries saw how important this disease was to research.

Again, he could've acted sooner, he decided not to.

---

Right because it's mattered at all?

But this is part of being a leader. There are things you can do, that are attainable. There are other things that are simply unattainable. Reagin set out and did what he could, he made choices as a leader.

Why blame him? Why arent you blaming the scientific, religious, or other social organizations?

If i remember rightly, i was still at school when all this came out about AIDS. Even then its was such an unknown quantity that no one knew what the best course of action was. Jeez we still didnt know the full ramifications, how fast it would spread, and we still didnt know the full SP on how it was spreading.

It seems alot of the arguments are based on Hind Sight, which in itself a wonderful thing, but pointless.

Other than that Ronnie did a fantastic job, and even with our own leader at the time, the Iron Lady, a fatastic amount of good was done!

Hmm, I'm really old so I vividly remember Reagan being president.

First of all, I remember growing up in the age of the "Bomb". We were all terrified of WWIII starting with Russia and the world being destroyed a'la "Dr. Strangelove".

Also, we were coming off of Carterism. Ahh, Carter. The gas lines, the Iranian prisoners, Billy Beer. America's self esteem was at a very low ebb. Reagan made us feel GOOD to be American again. I know that might sound trite to some, but it's important to those who include their nationality in their idea of self, which is a common American condition.

AIDS came upon the world stage as some bizarre anomaly that noone had ANY idea about. Like all diseases that are "new" and misunderstood, AIDS stirred up fear. However, to be honest, it was considered a "Gay" disease. We weren't really all that scared of it. I'm not trying to be insensitive, only trying to convey the mood of the masses.

We WERE scared of being destroyed by radiation. Because atom bombs kill people of ANY race, creed or sexual orientation, you see.

Anyway, Reagan WON the cold war. The freaking COLD WAR. The war we fought in Korea, Vietnam and every other shitty CIA- driven bizarre backstabbing bullshit foreign government toppling action America has always been accused of doing.

It's like those who are saying "Reagan didn't fund AIDS enough" are really trying to find some typical liberal spin to pin on Reagan. Reagan no more caused the epidemic of AIDS than he personally shot Freddy Mercury in the back of the head.

So really, excuse me if I find the assertion that Reagan didn't do enough to fund AIDS research; therefore, AIDS spread more rapidly to be ludicrous. Noone even knew what AIDS WAS. AIDS was no more understood than the cavemen grasped the implications of poor prostate health.

I too attended funerals of friends that died from AIDS. All gay men in their mid to late 30's or 40's. It was sad yes. My mother has breast cancer, that too is sad. Reagan died of Alzheimer's. Sad.

In hindsight, it's too bad he didn't fund more research for that. Perhaps he could defend himself now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamorak
Also, we were coming off of Carterism. Ahh, Carter. The gas lines, the Iranian prisoners, Billy Beer. America's self esteem was at a very low ebb. Reagan made us feel GOOD to be American again. I know that might sound trite to some, but it's important to those who include their nationality in their idea of self, which is a common American condition.

---

It is a shame that foo few people remember and understand this. Historians really need to make the point that America was in a bad spot prior to Reagan taking office- both psychologically and in actuality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamorak
So really, excuse me if I find the assertion that Reagan didn't do enough to fund AIDS research; therefore, AIDS spread more rapidly to be ludicrous. Noone even knew what AIDS WAS. AIDS was no more understood than the cavemen grasped the implications of poor prostate health.

---

Good analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamorak
I too attended funerals of friends that died from AIDS. All gay men in their mid to late 30's or 40's. It was sad yes. My mother has breast cancer, that too is sad. Reagan died of Alzheimer's. Sad.

---

Yes, very sad. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "So it goes."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioubisae
Nonetheless, I don't think you all understand what it was like in our community during the late 70's to mid-80's, things like our official greeting turning into "Have you gotten tested lately?" or watching 225 pound men turn into 110 lb weaklings or having a cold and being scared to go outside your door cause you don' t know which of your neighbors might have AIDS and die from germs carried by you.

---

You should keep in mind that the gay community has the highest percentage of AIDs as well as the lowest percentage. Gay men might be extremely susceptible to the virus, but lesbians are the least affected group of people.

One of my professors used that often to counter the people who would claim that this was God's punishment for homosexuals. Homosexual women are the least affected!

Anyway, I remember when the AIDs scare started. People really knew NOTHING about it. There were parents pulling kids out of school because they found out some other kid was HIV+ from a blood transfusion. People didn't know how it killed or if it even existed. (Keep in mind that when you have AIDs, your immune system is horribly depressed. Thus, what you're really dying of is things like the common cold and pneumonia.) Where do you direct your funding when it's something that's brand new?

If any of you have studied any biology, you know that one of the reasons AIDs is such an epidemic is because of the absolutely brilliant design (from a biological standpoint) of this pathogen. It has a long incubation time allow people to infect others before they even know they've been infected. Why aren't people complaining about no Ebola funding? Ebola is actually a much more virulent disease than AIDs. However, it kills so fast that it's not the same threat that AIDs is. I really think that only people who do not fully understand how the virus operates on a biological level could make accusations such as "Reagan didn't put enough funding into AIDs".