Mr. Snakey
Expert Member
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.
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.
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.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.
^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.
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.
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.
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.
Scientists WERE trying to give him information. He didn't listen. Look up Mathilde Krim. Watch the movie read the book And the Band Played ON.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?
Flashy, it's all about acknowledgement. People hold the President in high regard and you do as well. The simple mentioning of this disease back when it was festering in the early 80s would have made a big difference. It would have lead to people being more aware, more informed and could have prevented the deaths of many people.
Shouldn't that be ketchup? It was Reagan that claimed ketchup was a vegetable. It was right after this decision that school lunches began dropping real vegetables from the menu and replaced them with french fries and other treats.if the put Ronnie on the front would they put a picture of a bag of frozen mixed vegetables on the back?
You've got it a bit wrong Flashy. It wasn't until 1987 that Reagan finally mentioned the Aids crisis:well, i think that is the problem vb...Reagan did mention it in 1985, and then later in 1987...but i really do not know how he could have prevented it or caused more people to be informed, when even doctors and medical professionals could not figure out out to prevent it...
if Reagan had said "don't use intravenous drugs" and "don't have unprotected gay sex" in 1981, as a way of stopping the initial thread, i think the gay community would have flipped out on Reagan. Let's face it, people laughed at Nancy Reagan when she said "Just Say No"...even though that became a national slogan later on...
while i understand what you are saying Reagan could have done in terms of a symbolic message, i really do not think he could have done anything else. A cure would not have been found sooner...he could not actively stop unprotected sex, gay or hetero, he could not stop IV drug usage, and he and others did not even know about the tainted blood in the american supply for transfusions.
i understand he could have appeared more "sensitive" by acknowledging it earlier than 1985, but what could he really have said, other than "this is a terrible disease, and we have the best folks working on it"? that would have been taken seriously or as advice? at that time, if he had suggested closing the Bath houses in San Francisco as a way to combat the spread within the gay community which suffered tragically, one has to admit, that the community would likely have gone ballistic and accused Reagan of some type of witch hunt or civil rights infringement, when, in fact, in hindsight, the closings would maybe have saved those thousands of lives we were discussing...
but, would that have been tolerated without a fight or accusations against Reagan of prejudice etc. ?
as said, this was not a situation where really anything could have helped, especially the words of a President who was not well liked at all among the members of the community that was most affected by the horrible first phase of the epidemic.
That's exactly what we needed, a Sympathizer in Chief who didn't think that gay people were getting what they deserved.
even if Reagan had said something in 1982, it really would not have prevented anyone's death.