• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Proposal to put Reagan on $50 Bill

Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,242
Likes
29,677
Points
368
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You may or may not know that legislation has been submitted to replace Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill with the image of former president Ronald Reagan.

For me and the estimated 20,000 American lives that were lost to AIDS before this president even mentioned this health crisis, this would be a stab in the heart.
Reagan's first remarks on the AIDS crisis came on May 31, 1987 at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. This was near the end of his second term.
With the first reported cases coming to light in 1981 and over 1,000 cases being reported by 1983, this indifference to American suffering is the Reagan legacy, in my opinion.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, said he was kept out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, he said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.'
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Indy - It is hardly fair to admonish Reagan for not addressing AIDS. Reagan was not a doctor or medical researcher - he would have been receiving input or pressure from another source(s) had they known AIDS was such a threat at that time.

I understand your frustration, but it is simply not the job of the Commander In Chief to wage crusades against new viruses.

Obama wasn't the chairperson on containing the Swine Flu.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Likes
37
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Absolutely no way.
Reagan? On money? My GOD... some of these same people talk about those who are overpraising Obama. This is just insane!

Indy - It is hardly fair to admonish Reagan for not addressing AIDS. Reagan was not a doctor or medical researcher - he would have been receiving input or pressure from another source(s) had they known AIDS was such a threat at that time.

I understand your frustration, but it is simply not the job of the Commander In Chief to wage crusades against new viruses.

Obama wasn't the chairperson on containing the Swine Flu.

The only difference is that Obama didn't stay silent about the problem for six years while it grew to a major pandemic. Reagan received info about AIDS since it was discovered in the early 80s, and he remained silent on the subject for a very long time. Even if he isn't a doctor, presidents are looked upon as figures for information important to our nation. With tens thousands of people dying and contracting the virus, actions should have been done beforehand.
 
Last edited:

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,047
Likes
60
Points
193
Gender
Male
Ok, there is another way to lose my lunch! A mediocre actor who offered decent service as a California Governor and let his own views of the world and the people in it cloud judgement. The best words ever uttered from the mouth of Ronald W. Reagan were those he uttered when called in to testitify at the H.O.U.A.C. hearings started by Joseph McCarthy. They became the mantra of the Republican Party. Interesting but very flawed man and an interesting but flawed legacy.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,242
Likes
29,677
Points
368
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Indy - It is hardly fair to admonish Reagan for not addressing AIDS. Reagan was not a doctor or medical researcher - he would have been receiving input or pressure from another source(s) had they known AIDS was such a threat at that time.

I understand your frustration, but it is simply not the job of the Commander In Chief to wage crusades against new viruses.

Obama wasn't the chairperson on containing the Swine Flu.
Watch this movie sometime. You may learn something about the early politics of the Aids Crisis. And The Band Played On

 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,791
Likes
118
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
When there are so many other worthwhile historical figures to commemorate on USA money, Reagan is just the rank-and-file Reaganists pushing for more attention. Leave Andrew Jackson right where he is. And while the mint is at it, bring back the $500 and $1,000 bills!


EDIT: And Starpooper, when it comes to AIDS and the history of that disease in the USA and around the world, keep your ignorant mouth shut and let the grown ups talk. You, of all people, are in no position to comment on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Absolutely no way.
Reagan? On money? My GOD... some of these same people talk about those who are overpraising Obama. This is just insane!



The only difference is that Obama didn't stay silent about the problem for six years while it grew to a major pandemic. Reagan received info about AIDS since it was discovered in the early 80s, and he remained silent on the subject for a very long time. Even if he isn't a doctor, presidents are looked upon as figures for information important to our nation. With tens thousands of people dying and contracting the virus, actions should have been done beforehand.

Nobody knew what the hell was going on with AIDS in the early 80's - even doctors. By 1987 Reagan call AIDS 'public enemy number 1' and then George Bush was heckled for calling for mandatory HIV testing that same year.

To hold Ronald Reagan accountable for those deaths is ridiculous. You've got to be kidding me.

Why didn't George Washington do more about cancer? That sonafabitch - do you know how many people died of cancer and I don't recall seeing anything he said publicly about defeating cancer.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,791
Likes
118
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Again, Starpooper insists upon spraying his ignorance in our faces on a subject about which he knows absolutely nothing. Shut up, little Starpooper. You are way out of your league.
 

Flashy

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,902
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
While i am not condoning putting Reagan on the $50 bill, it should be noted that many of the folks on U.S. currency supported things far worse than Reagan.

Andrew Jackson, is on the $20...he advocated slavery and indian removal...
 

Flashy

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,902
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes they did. Watch the movie I recommended.
It's available at your local video store and netflix.

you do realize it was a book, that was far better, then it was as a movie?
 

B_talltpaguy

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,332
Likes
13
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I would favor either Roosevelt before Reagan. I also favor removing Grant and Jackson, who weren't exactly great Presidents.

I would rather our money have national symbols on them (flag, bald eagle, etc), not partisan symbols.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,791
Likes
118
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Grant on $50 and Jackson on $20 -- duly noted. And Uncle Ben on $100. But if they take Jackson off a a $20 then there will be a giant cultural gap in the USA because no one will ever figure out what the expression "Slip me a Jackson," or "If I slip you a Jackson?" means without having to consult Wikipedia -- which gets too much consultation time as it is.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I would rather our money have national symbols on them (flag, bald eagle, etc), not partisan symbols.

I would rather they had reminders on them - such as "Money doesn't grow on trees," or "Where did you get this?" or "Someone earned this, was it YOU?"

This type of thing would foster more fiscal responsibility.
 

B_talltpaguy

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,332
Likes
13
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^While funny, I hardly think that our currency is the place to be revealing to the world that some of our citizens aren't very bright.


To hold Ronald Reagan accountable for those deaths is ridiculous. You've got to be kidding me.
Who the hell are you trying to kid?

I'm a fan of Reagan's (my mom met him at the 85' Inauguration. I still have the special pin she received for attending), but blatantly lying through your teeth does nobody any good, least of all Reagan's legacy.

Reagan's White House was vehemently anti-gay and everyone knows it. Hell, Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan frequently remarked that "AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men."... It was White House policy to do NOTHING about AIDS, until further research finally showed that anyone could get it and was getting it, not just gay men. Only when political pressure was overwhelming, did Reagan and his people finally begin to do what they should have done literally years earlier. The President is supposed to be a leader for ALL Americans, not just the ones whose lifestyle he personally approves of.
 
Last edited:

B_talltpaguy

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,332
Likes
13
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Clarified my remark since you appearing to be trying to play a word game... Reagan's personal beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion... What he did professionally as President is what is at issue.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Likes
37
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Nobody knew what the hell was going on with AIDS in the early 80's - even doctors. By 1987 Reagan call AIDS 'public enemy number 1' and then George Bush was heckled for calling for mandatory HIV testing that same year.

I'm sorry, star. You are so wrong on this.
I got into a very heated debate with a woman on this board months ago and if you give me some time I can link it so you can follow along. Although doctors weren't completely aware of what the disease was capable of, a good amount of information was available as early as 1980 to figure out there was a problem. They even discovered HIV, the virus that causes AIDS as early as 1982. At one point, it was labeled as GRID (or Gay Related Immune Deficiency) which sent a message to most people that unless you were gay you didn't have to worry about it. That mentality fueled the issue until someone like Rock Hudson, an actor that was perceived as straight until his death, died of AIDS. Then, people's attitudes (including our government) started to change.

To hold Ronald Reagan accountable for those deaths is ridiculous. You've got to be kidding me.

People hold him responsible for staying silent. We know that Reagan didn't go around and kill every single person who had AIDS. But all it would have taken was a brief moment on TV to talk about the problem and people would have been more aware and better educated to address the problem.

Why didn't George Washington do more about cancer? That sonafabitch - do you know how many people died of cancer and I don't recall seeing anything he said publicly about defeating cancer.

Damn... :mad:
You do realize it's badly placed sarcasm like this, especially when you're addressing people who have friends who have either contracted or died from complications the virus, that makes people detest you? Also, considering that this isn't the first time you ever had a disagreement on this very subject matter it's more than disappointing that you would have such a nonchalant attitude over such a touchy subject. Because it was that same mentality that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of people to begin with.

Just pointing it out... because in all honesty, if you lost a loved one to a disease and we started making fun of it I'm sure you'd be pissed as well.
 

Mr. Snakey

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Posts
21,759
Likes
96
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
They should put Bill Clinton on the $50 bill getting a blow job. They were going to put Jimmy Carter on there, but they couldn't fit his buck teeth.
 

Flashy

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,902
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
well, while REagan was the government figurehead, it definitely is not fair to dump the blame on him entirely...

let's face it, AIDS in the early days was a political football that caused enormous fear and controversy, and it was not just Reagan that avoided it.

most of congress did...

and the Media totally ignored it...even the New York Times only had 6 articles on AIDS over a two year period...and none on the front page.

even if things had started moving faster you were dealing with turf wars between agencies (NIH, CDC) there was even a case when the French aids research samples were deliberately switched by a french doctor who had a grudge against his colleagues, and as a result when a US doctor got the samples here, the switching of the samples caused a delay of at least one year in terms of identifying the disease more completely.

also, let's not forget about people such as Gaëtan Dugas...who, in my mind, was far worse than Reagan. Here was a guy that knowingly kept spreading the disease.

while the beginning of the AIDS epidemic was certainly a sad and not to mention poor handling of a situation, there really was, in fact, very little that actually could have been done to help the first wave of AIDS patients.

and considering the spread, and the lack of initial media attention etc. it simply was a perfect storm.

now, while Reagan's sentiments towards gays indeed were callous, let's face it, in the early to mid 1980s, most people, were terrified of AIDS because so little was known about it...and, to be honest, when all you knew was that it was spread between gay men and IV users, you felt relatively safe if you were neither of those descriptions.

I will be perfectly honest...i did not care about AIDS in the early to mid 80s. i was not an IV drug user, i was not a gay male, and i was barely even into my teens then...i was just starting to fool around with girls, none of whom had been sexually active either since we were 13.

in terms of disease, i was much more worried about cancer...i had 6 family members at least who i knew had died of cancer...

that began to change when people began to understand that it could be transmitted through transfusions and then through heterosexual sex with an infected partner.

to display the level of ignorance there was, when i was 18 and my girlfriend was 19, (around 1989) and i was cajoling her to have anal sex, she said to me "isn't that how you get AIDS?" so, i told her, "well, as long as i don't have it and you don't have it, no" which was true.

obviously, though as we learned more about the disease and how it was spread, the press and public became more concerned over time.

it was a very unfortunate time (and still is for many living with it)

i think we can all agree it was a very difficult situation, that was not handled well at all by a wide variety of people...even doctors and hospital and care workers refused to treat AIDS patients in the beginning because of the fear of not knowing about the disease.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Likes
37
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Flashy: If anything, something should have been said back when it was discovered in '82/'83. If not the President (who would have been the most ideal person) or someone in Congress. To suggest that the media was completely silent is not completely right, since musicians and many other people in the arts were already vocal about it before our Government was.

It's all about acknowledgement... the same way many conservatives wanted Obama to mention the word "terror" when referring to the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq at one time. The fact that someone on a Presidential level would recognize a problem sends a big message to people. Something like that in '82 may have helped to spread more awareness and prevent the needless death of many.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Just pointing it out... because in all honesty, if you lost a loved one to a disease and we started making fun of it I'm sure you'd be pissed as well.

Whoa...where did I make fun of it?

I think blaming Reagan is misplacing hostility, but I've never made fun of the disease and never would.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,242
Likes
29,677
Points
368
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Whoa...where did I make fun of it?

I think blaming Reagan is misplacing hostility, but I've never made fun of the disease and never would.
Hostility is not misplaced if the person's SILENCE cost lives, which it did. This legislation would have to go through the House Financial Services committee which is chaired by barney Frank. I'm sure he'll have a thing or two to say.
 

houtx48

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,918
Likes
213
Points
208
Gender
Male
if the put Ronnie on the front would they put a picture of a bag of frozen mixed vegetables on the back?
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,643
Likes
54
Points
193
^Clarified my remark since you appearing to be trying to play a word game... Reagan's personal beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion... What he did professionally as President is what is at issue.

You changed "Reagan was anti-gay and everyone knows it" to "Reagan's White House was anti-gay and everyone knows it."

That is an appreciable change, and one that I have no trouble agreeing with.

Not really a word game, imho.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hostility is not misplaced if the person's SILENCE cost lives, which it did. This legislation would have to go through the House Financial Services committee which is chaired by barney Frank. I'm sure he'll have a thing or two to say.

But couldn't someone..anyone else...have introduced legislation or raised awareness? A senator, and congressperson, someone in the health department?

Barney Frank himself?

You seem to be suggesting that no one in the U.S. was allowed or permitted to advance awareness on AIDS unless Reagan made a speech or address first.

Isn't there a chance that since Reagan didn't know exactly what the facts were regarding the disease - that perhaps he was waiting for more info to become available before going public with it?