cal50 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Amazing... The POTUS is held responsible for a person getting a deadly virus from ass fucking someone with a deadly blood virus that they probably obtained from another dirty ass or drug use... A fatal disease that can be prevented simply by avoiding contact? Too bad all diseases were not that easy to avoid contracting. I never had a problem with equal rights but when people start demanding special rights I hope the herd gets thinned out. If someone chooses to live a high risk lifestyle be it gay or drug user you get what comes with it. Demanding additional resources be steered into a disease that is 100% avoidable vs a laundry list of others that are not is a no brainier for research spending IMHO. Kennedy with brain cancer was unfortunate and could happen to anyone. If Barney Frank or his partner contract AIDS its his/her own fault. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Tell that to Ryan White. His friends or family are not the idiots in the White House that is the topic of this thread. Edited June 28, 2012 by mettech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Gilmore Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So in your opinion those protest signs equal the behavior of guests invited into the White House? Wow... Can't help but notice he didn't include what was said about the pervious guy. But after all, people like Mark applauded the journalist who threw a shoe at Bush, but got piss when one tried asking Obama a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Gilmore Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm going to suggest that once a majority of conservatives are tolerant of homosexuality Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. I've grown tired of seeing the Left pull down our society, and comments like this just prove they won't be happy until we've hit the bottom. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. I've grown tired of seeing the Left pull down our society, and comments like this just prove they won't be happy until we've hit the bottom. Well, considering your attitude concerning it I wouldn't expect the LGTB crowd to act all thoughtful and good willed towards you and others like you. Would you have them act as you yourself choose not to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 His friends or family are not the idiots in the White House that is the topic of this thread. I was responding you your nonsense about ass fucking and drug use. Try to keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Can't help but notice he didn't include what was said about the pervious guy. But after all, people like Mark applauded the journalist who threw a shoe at Bush, but got piss when one tried asking Obama a question. I don't recall commenting at all about the Iraqi who threw his shoe at Bush. I would certainly condemn anyone who did that here in America. Of course, they would be in jail or dead if they pulled that here. You really like telling me what I think. Guess what I'm thinking now. Edited June 28, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I don't recall commenting at all about the Iraqi who threw his shoe at Bush. I would certainly condemn anyone who did that here in America. Of course, they would be in jail or dead if they pulled that here. You really like telling me what I think. Guess what I'm thinking now. let me see.........what to have for lunch! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 let me see.........what to have for lunch! Well that's what I'm thinking now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ronald Reagan isn't the reason Ryan White contracted AIDS (the issue surrounding White was the right to be admitted to a public school with the disease, not how he contracted it). The bottom line is that Ronald Reagan isn't the reason that anyone contracted and died from AIDS. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ronald Reagan isn't the reason Ryan White contracted AIDS (the issue surrounding White was the right to be admitted to a public school with the disease, not how he contracted it). The bottom line is that Ronald Reagan isn't the reason that anyone contracted and died from AIDS. I didn't say Reagan was the reason anyone contracted AIDS. Reagan's response to the epidemic was tone deaf. It was thought that the disease was limited to a small unpopular group. The message received was that he didn't care. That's what many still remember. The problem was that an epidemic seldom remains cloistered in a small group. Ultimately, it did spread to others like Ryan White, women married to men who were leading a closeted life, people who weren't engaging in high risk behavior. We have learned a lot in the past 30 years and it is not fair to hold people from that time to the knowledge we have today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I didn't say Reagan was the reason anyone contracted AIDS. Reagan's response to the epidemic was tone deaf. It was thought that the disease was limited to a small unpopular group. The message received was that he didn't care. That's what many still remember. The problem was that an epidemic seldom remains cloistered in a small group. Ultimately, it did spread to others like Ryan White, women married to men who were leading a closeted life, people who weren't engaging in high risk behavior. We have learned a lot in the past 30 years and it is not fair to hold people from that time to the knowledge we have today. If a disease affects a small portion of the population, and we know early on exactly how it is spread (and avoiding it is very easy), then there is no reason that it has to be the number-one priority of the federal government. Ronald Reagan took the attitude of most of us - we wouldn't wish AIDS on anyone, and didn't view it as the punishment for anything, but we didn't see why it should garner more attention than, say, cystic fibrosis, another ultimately fatal disease. Especially when a person can easily avoid contracting AIDS, but is born with cystic fibrosis. From the vantage of history, it's apparent that the federal actions demanded by AIDS advocates were out of proportion to the disease's actual threat level. But it helps if most of the people afflicted with the disease live in major media centers such as New York City or Los Angeles, or work in an industry where they come into contact with people such as Elizabeth Taylor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was responding you your nonsense about ass fucking and drug use. Try to keep up. Sore subject for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I believe that RangerM's post effectively demolishes the idea that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the spread of AIDS. The "lack of political will" to "handle" the outbreak (i.e., stop it from spreading), came from the gay community itself. If the gay community wants to see the party responsible for the spread of the disease, it merely needs to find a mirror. If gay activists want to believe an inaccurate version of history, and flip the bird to Reagan's photo in the White House, that is their choice. In addition to making them childish, however, it also makes them stupid. I don't believe in any way that his post diminishes the tone and actions of the Reagan White House in the least. Like all things there are usually more than one variable involved in the situation. They are not taking an inaccurate view of the situation, they are taking a accurate view of the situation and assigning blame to one of the players who deserves blame. Perhaps they are not criticizing all of the players but they are attacking someone who deserves to be questioned about his lack of action in the face of an epidemic. And yes, it was an epidemic and not a situation like Cystic fibrosis where the numbers are relatively stable. In a press briefing at the White House in 1982, a journalist asked a spokesperson for President Reagan “…does the President have any reaction to the announcement – the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?” The spokesperson responded - “What’s AIDS?”To a question about whether the President, or anybody in the White House knew about the epidemic, the spokesperson replied, “I don’t think so”. http://www.avert.org/aids-history-america.htm The reality is that Reagan and those of his daily administration took too long to adequately respounded to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. He does have blood on his hands and if you look at the political record his own staff was working hard to keep the president from having to acknowledge the issue. What i expect is that most of the conservatives here will ignore that and only place blame on the one side and the mistakes they made without acknowledging the mistakes of their own. Again so that we don't become bogged down in this semantical back and forth, there were mistakes on the part of the homosexual community that cost all of us, they are by no means free from criticisms, but that doesn't stop them from criticizing Reagan for his failings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Sore subject for you? Yes. Gay sex discussion can be a pain in the ass. (But it will not kill you) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I don't believe in any way that his post diminishes the tone and actions of the Reagan White House in the least. Like all things there are usually more than one variable involved in the situation. They are not taking an inaccurate view of the situation, they are taking a accurate view of the situation and assigning blame to one of the players who deserves blame. Perhaps they are not criticizing all of the players but they are attacking someone who deserves to be questioned about his lack of action in the face of an epidemic. And yes, it was an epidemic and not a situation like Cystic fibrosis where the numbers are relatively stable. They completely ignore that activists within their own community were the ones fighting the very measures that could have curbed the spread of the disease. People within the community were fighting government efforts to curb the spread the disease (including actions by liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein, then the mayor of San Francisco) and ignored evidence as to how it was spread. It was THEIR fault that the disease was spreading, not Ronald Reagan's. The reality is that Reagan and those of his daily administration took too long to adequately respounded to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. He does have blood on his hands and if you look at the political record his own staff was working hard to keep the president from having to acknowledge the issue. What i expect is that most of the conservatives here will ignore that and only place blame on the one side and the mistakes they made without acknowledging the mistakes of their own. Again so that we don't become bogged down in this semantical back and forth, there were mistakes on the part of the homosexual community that cost all of us, they are by no means free from criticisms, but that doesn't stop them from criticizing Reagan for his failings. Conservatives aren't the ones childishly giving the finger to anyone in the gay community, while ignoring the part that members of their own side played in facilitating the spread of the disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 They completely ignore that activists within their own community were the ones fighting the very measures that could have curbed the spread of the disease. People within the community were fighting government efforts to curb the spread the disease (including actions by liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein, then the mayor of San Francisco) and ignored evidence as to how it was spread. It was THEIR fault that the disease was spreading, not Ronald Reagan's. Conservatives aren't the ones childishly giving the finger to anyone in the gay community, while ignoring the part that members of their own side played in facilitating the spread of the disease. You know its always a republicans fault or in this instance all of the ones hanging on the wall. A feeble attempt to diminish or justify the finger response of a few gay visitors with absolutely no adult level of respect or professionalism to presidents past or the office itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Sore subject for you? Tsk, tsk . . . prostate bugging you these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 Tsk, tsk . . . prostate bugging you these days? lol.. Just had it checked on my retirement physical in May... Doc said it felt OK.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) If a disease affects a small portion of the population, and we know early on exactly how it is spread (and avoiding it is very easy), then there is no reason that it has to be the number-one priority of the federal government. Ronald Reagan took the attitude of most of us - we wouldn't wish AIDS on anyone, and didn't view it as the punishment for anything, but we didn't see why it should garner more attention than, say, cystic fibrosis, another ultimately fatal disease. Especially when a person can easily avoid contracting AIDS, but is born with cystic fibrosis. From the vantage of history, it's apparent that the federal actions demanded by AIDS advocates were out of proportion to the disease's actual threat level. But it helps if most of the people afflicted with the disease live in major media centers such as New York City or Los Angeles, or work in an industry where they come into contact with people such as Elizabeth Taylor. Many of Reagan's supporters like Falwell and Robertson did say it was God's punishment and Reagan never took them on to correct them. His silence conveyed assent to many of those afflicted and their families. Compare that to the example of George W. Bush and his work on AIDS treatment and prevention. Edited June 28, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 They completely ignore that activists within their own community were the ones fighting the very measures that could have curbed the spread of the disease. People within the community were fighting government efforts to curb the spread the disease (including actions by liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein, then the mayor of San Francisco) and ignored evidence as to how it was spread. It was THEIR fault that the disease was spreading, not Ronald Reagan's. Conservatives aren't the ones childishly giving the finger to anyone in the gay community, while ignoring the part that members of their own side played in facilitating the spread of the disease. I seriously can not understand why this always falls on partisan lines. It is both sides fault for their actions that allowed, encouraged or enabled the situation to get worse and to cause a major plague on the entire world. Reagan could have done much more to help deal with the situation and did not. That is simply a failure on the part of the former president and nothing changes that. The actions of the gay community do not negate the simple reality that Reagan did not address the situation correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I seriously can not understand why this always falls on partisan lines. It is both sides fault for their actions that allowed, encouraged or enabled the situation to get worse and to cause a major plague on the entire world. Reagan could have done much more to help deal with the situation and did not. That is simply a failure on the part of the former president and nothing changes that. The actions of the gay community do not negate the simple reality that Reagan did not address the situation correctly. What - exactly - should he have done that he didn't attempt to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 I seriously can not understand why this always falls on partisan lines. It is both sides fault for their actions that allowed, encouraged or enabled the situation to get worse and to cause a major plague on the entire world. Reagan could have done much more to help deal with the situation and did not. That is simply a failure on the part of the former president and nothing changes that. The actions of the gay community do not negate the simple reality that Reagan did not address the situation correctly. The problem rest with the individual... They "did not address the situation correctly". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 What - exactly - should he have done that he didn't attempt to do? He should have spoken out concerning the issue including openly denouncing key republican supporters who were hostile towards homosexuals during this time. He should have pushed OPENLY to increase funding. He should have acknowledged the epidemic at it's earliest stages, instead of having his press people say what I quoted earlier. The president has a remarkable ability to change public opinion, to open peoples eyes especially Reagan at that time. Had he and others within the admin discussed using condoms instead of attempting to change human nature and push abstinence we might be better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 He should have spoken out concerning the issue including openly denouncing key republican supporters who were hostile towards homosexuals during this time. He should have pushed OPENLY to increase funding. He should have acknowledged the epidemic at it's earliest stages, instead of having his press people say what I quoted earlier. The president has a remarkable ability to change public opinion, to open peoples eyes especially Reagan at that time. Had he and others within the admin discussed using condoms instead of attempting to change human nature and push abstinence we might be better off. Had the people practice abstinence.... they would have been better off... They just didn't take the President's advice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.