Proposal to put Reagan on $50 Bill

Mr. Snakey

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Posts
21,752
Media
0
Likes
125
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

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
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

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
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.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
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.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,167
Points
618
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.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
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.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
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?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Whoa...where did I make fun of it?

The nonchalant, sarcastic remark you made about George Washington not being vocal about Cancer indirectly pokes fun at anyone who stores resentment for Reagan remaining silent about AIDS. It's a very cheap shot. You wonder why I sometimes respond with such conviction and scathing responses? Think about how many people who lost friends to this disease in the 80s, and you toss them and their feelings aside like that as if they're "foolish" for not holding people in power accountable for spreading an important message that could save lives?

BTW... this is not a "bleeding heart liberal" thing either. It's merely being human and considerate.

I think blaming Reagan is misplacing hostility, but I've never made fun of the disease and never would.

Well, I already pointed out how you have. But here's a question: When some people were getting on Obama's case last year for not being vocal enough about the War in Iraq by not saying the word "terror", did you think that was misplaced hostility?

Despite the circumstances, the problem is still the same. Like I stated to 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.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
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.

well, VB...that is indeed the ideal situation, yes, i agree...but let's remember where things were in January 81 when Reagan took office...the cold war was still raging, the economy was in the tank, the far right was just starting to rise in power, it was a pretty tough time and obviously, things were overlooked (let's not forget the crack epidemic started exploding at around the same time)...

sadly, AIDS was simply not a "priority" in a world where there were perceived to be much more important things going on then what was believed to be an outbreak of what was deemed an STD, among what was considered to be an extremely small, not to mention, rather marginalized and ignored pair of segments of society at the time...

unfortunately, neither the president or congress did anything...but, as i said, it simply was not a "priority"...it certainly would have been to someone who may have been a congressman from San Francisco or NYC at the time, who maybe represented districts where this may have been an emerging alarm, but let's face it...a blue dog democrat or a conservative republican who represents the 5th congressional district of say, Oklahoma, would likely not have anything to say on it, for obvious reasons.

as for people in the arts being silent about it, well, they are not the media...they are entertainers...and that is a big difference...i do not recall any high profile artists becoming really vocal until 84/85/86...

but the media did remain largely silent up until it became major concern. I am sure as we both recall back in the "good old days" of the 1980s when we were young :wink:, how little there was in the way of news, in comparison to what we have today...most people read (in NYC) either the NYTimes, The NYPost, or the Daily NEws or Newsday...

CNN was a tiny operation back then...and all there was were ABC, NBC, CBS...the nightly news, the local news, and the morning news...there were shows like Niteline, and 60 Minutes...but still, most were mainly silent until the full scope of AIDS was realized....and then, it was only really picked up on heavily when it became known it was spread to anyone who was tainted with infected blood, through transfer of that to open skin etc...

even if Reagan had said something in 1982, it really would not have prevented anyone's death...Reagan was not a doctor or a scientist...in times like that, all a president can really be is a sympathizer-in-chief.

I am not sure what Reagan could have said, considering we still knew very little about how it was spread in 1982, that would have raised awareness, because frankly, everyone was scared...and i would bet that included alot of government types too...absolutely nobody knew how it spread early on and for quite awhile....

so while Reagan certainly could have done more, i just don't think that anything that he did do, would have ultimately made a difference.

even the name "AIDS" was not even known until mid-July of 1982....and, from what i know, it was thought up by many gay community leaders/CDC members and politicans in a meeting to give the disease an official name/term that would allow recognition of it to the public at large.

even HIV, which was discovered in 83, was not officially "named" until 1986.

the AIDS CDC/HOtline was started around 1983 or so...

the first time i recall becoming really aware of it was during the Ryan White episode in 1984 (i was 12 and he was a bout thesame age and i remember feeling very badly for him), which was very sad, and was the first real big public discussion of it, because before that it simply was considered a "gay" or "IV user" disease...that was the first time i really recall artists becoming very involved with it in such a high profile way (Elton John as i recall was a huge supporter of Ryan through the diffiuclt time)

obviously in hindsight we can say what should have happened, but the uncertainty and fear of that time, was to say the least, very disconcerting.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,167
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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?
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.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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.

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.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
if the put Ronnie on the front would they put a picture of a bag of frozen mixed vegetables on the back?
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.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,167
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
You've got it a bit wrong Flashy. It wasn't until 1987 that Reagan finally mentioned the Aids crisis:
..."Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases. "

and what took him so long?
..."A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." ...

and what would him speaking out have done?
..."How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership had generated compassion rather than hostility. "In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration." "

Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death - SFGate
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That's exactly what we needed, a Sympathizer in Chief who didn't think that gay people were getting what they deserved.

regardless of the language, you are still not saying how things would have been any different for the unfortunate people who lost their lives in the early days of the epidemic...it took years to find vaccines that slow the disease and there still is no real cure for it...

whatever the scientists were in fact saying, they still had very little knowledge at all of the disease, and in fact, had no way to stop it, other than to keep working and hoping to find out more about it.

what else could truly be done from a medical standpoint?

we know things could have been done from a political, or ceremonial standpoint, by making a speech...but, if people hated Reagan, what could he have said that would have appeased you or members so affected by this?

all he could have said, which was true, was that scientists were working to find a cure.

so i am not sure what you could have want Reagan to have done. Had he offered sympathy, based on what you said above, it would be considered false by you and the community most afflicted...so what would be the point?

I am just saying, in your view of him, it was "damned if you, damned if you don't"...so considering he had no scientific skill or medical skill himself, and considering that you believe he wanted people to die of aids because they deserved it, and considering you believe that he also offered no sympathy and did not call attention to it publicly, what exactly do you want?

i understand your emotions on the topic, but basically, you are saying "here are the 3 things he could have done...and we think they are all wrong"

he could have...

1. solved the problem medically (which still hasn't been done)
2. spoke out in sympathy (which you believe would be a lie)
3. not spoke out and stayed relatively quiet (which is because you say he believed they deserved it)

do you see the point i am making?

which of those 3 options, should have been taken? one is unrealistic scientifically and medically, and the other 2 options offer nothing but scorn and do not solve the problem either.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
even if Reagan had said something in 1982, it really would not have prevented anyone's death.

I sincerely doubt that.
One of the main reasons why the epidemic was allowed to grow out of control is because it was labeled as a gay man's disease. Before it was called AIDS, it was called GRID (or Gay Related Immune Deficiency). Even when it was changed to AIDS, people still categorized it with the homosexual community so it was downplayed as not being a major problem. What's even worse is that much preventive research was already done by the gay communities as early as '82. They created their own pamphlets and started spreading the awareness of safe sex back then. Again, all of it ignored because our society considered it a problem for gay men only. Even up to this day, you feel resentment from some heterosexuals about AIDS & the HIV virus. They still acquaint the acquisition of this disease as a "gay thing", and word it as such to suggest that gay people brought this problem to their doorsteps. But I digress...

Back in 1982, gay men knew that this disease wasn't just going to affect them alone. But they needed a voice, a powerful one, to help them break through the nonsense because nobody outside of the gay community was listening. The President, or any powerful heterosexual figure, would have been able to echo that fact in such a way to make others take notice. But it took not only Rock Hudson to die, but also Magic Johnson to attract the virus in order for people to really take AIDS seriously. And why is that? Because both of these people were perceived as "straight" in regular society. Only THEN did it become an important issue. Of course, many other gay men died before that... including babies who were born with it.

Hence the resentment a lot of gay & lesbian people who lived through that decade have towards Reagan and most government figures in the 80s. If you ask me, I think their grief is justified. Nobody was asking for someone to come in with a magic wand and wave the disease away. They wanted to know someone outside of their own circle recognized the problem, understood the severity and helped to spread the message.
 
Last edited: