Yes, a few people out of 300. Time to let it go. A good anti-gay, anti-Obama talking point for a few days. Nothing more, nothing less.

I will make this my last post on this thread unless you respond.

Thus it has been let go by the two of us.

Deal?

No deal.

No deal.

Then why say "time to let it go"?

Understood, but we're not the only people posting to this topic and I don't wish to surrender my option to further respond. Please don't invite me again to make such deals; I won't ever be interested,

Understood, but we're not the only people posting to this topic and I don't wish to surrender my option to further respond. Please don't invite me again to make such deals; I won't ever be interested,

Then please don't tell posters to "let it go" unless you are also willing to do so.Cheers.

This info was asked for. The revisionist history about Reagan and Aids will not stand.

PHIL GASPER, COUNTERPUNCH - Reagan refused to mention AIDS publicly for six years, under-funded federal programs dealing with the disease and, according to his authorized biography, said, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, later revealed, "because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the advisors to the president took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve.". . .

MICHAEL BRONSKI, Z MAGAZINE - When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagan’s, was diagnosed and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out. When family friend William F. Buckley, in a March 18, 1986 New York Times article, called for mandatory testing of HIV and said that HIV+ gay men should have this information forcibly tattooed on their buttocks (and IV drug users on their arms), Reagan said nothing. In 1986 (after five years of complete silence) when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a report calling for AIDS education in schools, Bennett and Bauer did everything possible to undercut and prevent funding for Koop’s too-little too-late initiative. By the end of 1986, 37,061 AIDS cases had been reported; 16,301 people had died.

The most memorable Reagan AIDS moment was at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty. The Reagan’s were there sitting next to the French Prime Minister and his wife, Francois and Danielle Mitterrand. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners, Hope quipped, “I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.” As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterrands looked appalled. The Reagans were laughing. By the end of 1989, 115,786 women and men had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States—more then 70,000 of them had died.

http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1294

Also, don't forget Reagan's close political alliance with the villainous preacher of hate, Jerry Falwell, who said this type of thing many, many times in much more virulent tone.

I was there. I witnessed the history first hand. Reagan's administration decided that gay people deserved their plague for biblical reasons.

I don't suppose you have a link to back up this allegation?

I wouldn't say anyone in the Reagan aministration felt this way specifically,

...

Wrong.

This info was asked for. The revisionist history about Reagan and Aids will not stand.

PHIL GASPER, COUNTERPUNCH - Reagan refused to mention AIDS publicly for six years, under-funded federal programs dealing with the disease and, according to his authorized biography, said, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, later revealed, "because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the advisors to the president took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve.". . .

MICHAEL BRONSKI, Z MAGAZINE - When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagan’s, was diagnosed and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out. When family friend William F. Buckley, in a March 18, 1986 New York Times article, called for mandatory testing of HIV and said that HIV+ gay men should have this information forcibly tattooed on their buttocks (and IV drug users on their arms), Reagan said nothing. In 1986 (after five years of complete silence) when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a report calling for AIDS education in schools, Bennett and Bauer did everything possible to undercut and prevent funding for Koop’s too-little too-late initiative. By the end of 1986, 37,061 AIDS cases had been reported; 16,301 people had died.

The most memorable Reagan AIDS moment was at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty. The Reagan’s were there sitting next to the French Prime Minister and his wife, Francois and Danielle Mitterrand. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners, Hope quipped, “I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.” As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterrands looked appalled. The Reagans were laughing. By the end of 1989, 115,786 women and men had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States—more then 70,000 of them had died.

http://www.pubtheo.c...ge.asp?pid=1294

Also, don't forget Reagan's close political alliance with the villainous preacher of hate, Jerry Falwell, who said this type of thing many, many times in much more virulent tone.

Bob Hope, Buckley and Falwell were no more part of Reagan's Admin than Bill Maher, Chris Matthews and Rev Wright are part of Obama's. Not that Chris Matthews is the liberal equivalent of Buckley, there just aren't any great liberal minds out there nearly as smart as Buckley for this example.

BTW - while in bad taste, the joke was clever and funny. The Mitterrands probably didn't understand and/or they prefer Jerry Lewis.

I was there. I witnessed the history first hand. Reagan's administration decided that gay people deserved their plague for biblical reasons.

I don't suppose you have a link to back up this allegation?

I wouldn't say anyone in the Reagan aministration felt this way specifically,

...

Wrong.

Right. Now let it go.

Right. Now let it go.

No way. Not going to let the right wing bury the truth of what Reagan didn't do about Aids. He was horrible and survivors like me won't let that truth ever be twisted by his political worshipers.

Right. Now let it go.

No way. Not going to let the right wing bury the truth of what Reagan didn't do about Aids. He was horrible and survivors like me won't let that truth ever be twisted by his political worshipers.

I survived too and I'm not upset about Reagan at all.

Right. Now let it go.

No way. Not going to let the right wing bury the truth of what Reagan didn't do about Aids. He was horrible and survivors like me won't let that truth ever be twisted by his political worshipers.

I survived too and I'm not upset about Reagan at all.

What I mean is that almost all of my friends from the Reagan era died horribly of Aids and they died feeling their federal government couldn't care less. As I documented before, in some years during the Reagan/Aids era, the small city of San Francisco spent more money on the problem than the entire federal government. When you say you survived, what do you mean? I was in the middle of ground zero of the pandemic. I survived it. I don't know why. What did you survive? Watching it on television?

Either you don't get it or you don't care/never cared. Imagine if such a pandemic struck a socially desirable group of people. Reagan would have been on it like white on rice the same night, and it would have been a top priority of his administration. If you don't admit that, you're not being intellectually honest.

Yes, those people are dead. In addition to the ones who were very close, I remember many of their names and faces and I will always remember them. People like you are not going to get away with your revisionist history. Survivors like me owe it to the dead to not let that happen. This stain will be on the memory of Reagan FOREVER. I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

. I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

That is some accusation!!

Reagan and Aids Denial and Holocaust Denial!!

. I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

That is some accusation!!

Reagan and Aids Denial and Holocaust Denial!!

I'm talking about the immorality of the denial. Not talking about the actual crimes. Not at all comparable. So don't get your panties all in a twist.

I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

You are ridiculous.

Right. Now let it go.

No way. Not going to let the right wing bury the truth of what Reagan didn't do about Aids. He was horrible and survivors like me won't let that truth ever be twisted by his political worshipers.

I survived too and I'm not upset about Reagan at all.

What I mean is that almost all of my friends from the Reagan era died horribly of Aids and they died feeling their federal government couldn't care less. As I documented before, in some years during the Reagan/Aids era, the small city of San Francisco spent more money on the problem than the entire federal government. When you say you survived, what do you mean? I was in the middle of ground zero of the pandemic. I survived it. I don't know why. What did you survive? Watching it on television?

Either you don't get it or you don't care/never cared. Imagine if such a pandemic struck a socially desirable group of people. Reagan would have been on it like white on rice the same night, and it would have been a top priority of his administration. If you don't admit that, you're not being intellectually honest.

Yes, those people are dead. In addition to the ones who were very close, I remember many of their names and faces and I will always remember them. People like you are not going to get away with your revisionist history. Survivors like me owe it to the dead to not let that happen. This stain will be on the memory of Reagan FOREVER. I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

Perhaps 2.5% of the US population will consider it a stain. The remaining 97.5% would possibly disagree with you.

I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

You are ridiculous.

Considering the source, I'll take that as a complement. Also considering this is about the tenth time you've repeated that particular barb in various settings. Do you have a macro to paste that in?

What are the motivations behind holocaust denial?

1. To show the Nazis weren't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the Jews deserved it

What are the motivations behind denying Reagan's lack of action on Aids?

1. To show the Reagan wasn't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the gays deserved it

To repeat again what I posted before:

I'm talking about the immorality of the denial. Not talking about the actual crimes. Not at all comparable. So don't get your panties all in a twist.

Perhaps 2.5% of the US population will consider it a stain. The remaining 97.5% would possibly disagree with you.

The history is already written and it backs up what I experienced. You will not succeed in erasing the history.

I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

You are ridiculous.

Considering the source, I'll take that as a complement. Also considering this is about the tenth time you've repeated that particular barb in various settings. Do you have a macro to paste that in?

What are the motivations behind holocaust denial?

1. To show the Nazis weren't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the Jews deserved it

What are the motivations behind denying Reagan's lack of action on Aids?

1. To show the Reagan wasn't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the gays deserved it

As it has already been pointed out, the gov't had been spending money on AIDS research since Reagan's second year in office. To hate him because he didn't give a speech about it is childish. Especially since even today there are gays who don't use protection. So some who hate Reagan for not taking action still don't take action themselves.

Since AIDS is so important to you, I wonder why you haven't been singing the praises of George W Bush? Geldof and Bono have, yet you ignore it. Makes one doubt your sincerity on the subject. Or maybe you just don't think African children are as important?

I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

You are ridiculous.

Considering the source, I'll take that as a complement. Also considering this is about the tenth time you've repeated that particular barb in various settings. Do you have a macro to paste that in?

What are the motivations behind holocaust denial?

1. To show the Nazis weren't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the Jews deserved it

What are the motivations behind denying Reagan's lack of action on Aids?

1. To show the Reagan wasn't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the gays deserved it

To repeat again what I posted before:

I'm talking about the immorality of the denial. Not talking about the actual crimes. Not at all comparable. So don't get your panties all in a twist.

The immorality of the denial scales with the immorality of the underlying reference. C'mon, think about it. Oh, never mind.

I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

You are ridiculous.

Considering the source, I'll take that as a complement. Also considering this is about the tenth time you've repeated that particular barb in various settings. Do you have a macro to paste that in?

What are the motivations behind holocaust denial?

1. To show the Nazis weren't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the Jews deserved it

What are the motivations behind denying Reagan's lack of action on Aids?

1. To show the Reagan wasn't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the gays deserved it

As it has already been pointed out, the gov't had been spending money on AIDS research since Reagan's second year in office. To hate him because he didn't give a speech about it is childish. Especially since even today there are gays who don't use protection. So some who hate Reagan for not taking action still don't take action themselves.

Since AIDS is so important to you, I wonder why you haven't been singing the praises of George W Bush? Geldof and Bono have, yet you ignore it. Makes one doubt your sincerity on the subject. Or maybe you just don't think African children are as important?

The spending was totally inadequate. The attention was totally inadequate. The stats you gave before from the right wing self hating gay man were total lies. I have already documented Reagan bought into the Christian punishment for sin BS sold by the hate monger Falwell, his very close political ally. I asked you before, do you think the response would have been the same by Reagan if the impacted social group wasn't a stigmatized one. Anyone with any common sense knows the reactions would have been MASSIVELY different if the initial impacted group was a group hate groups like Falwell's Moral Majority actually care about. They were HAPPY to see gays die like flies. That is the history and you can never erase it.

The topic is about Reagan and his horribly inadequate, anti-gay non-response to Aids. If you want to talk about Bush start a new thread. Don't you dare try to divert this by accusing me of racism.

I consider your pro Reagan propaganda campaign morally equivalent to holocaust denial.

You are ridiculous.

Considering the source, I'll take that as a complement. Also considering this is about the tenth time you've repeated that particular barb in various settings. Do you have a macro to paste that in?

What are the motivations behind holocaust denial?

1. To show the Nazis weren't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the Jews deserved it

What are the motivations behind denying Reagan's lack of action on Aids?

1. To show the Reagan wasn't that bad

2. To express the feeling that the gays deserved it

To repeat again what I posted before:

I'm talking about the immorality of the denial. Not talking about the actual crimes. Not at all comparable. So don't get your panties all in a twist.

The immorality of the denial scales with the immorality of the underlying reference. C'mon, think about it. Oh, never mind.

I get that point. I still see similarities between the psychological motivations of BOTH of these immoral revisionist history DENIAL movements.

As it has already been pointed out, the gov't had been spending money on AIDS research since Reagan's second year in office. To hate him because he didn't give a speech about it is childish. Especially since even today there are gays who don't use protection. So some who hate Reagan for not taking action still don't take action themselves.

Since AIDS is so important to you, I wonder why you haven't been singing the praises of George W Bush? Geldof and Bono have, yet you ignore it. Makes one doubt your sincerity on the subject. Or maybe you just don't think African children are as important?

The spending was totally inadequate. The attention was totally inadequate. The stats you gave before from the right wing self hating gay man were total lies. I have already documented Reagan bought into the Christian punishment for sin BS sold by the hate monger Falwell, his very close political ally. I asked you before, do you think the response would have been the same by Reagan if the impacted social group wasn't a stigmatized one. Anyone with any common sense knows the reactions would have been MASSIVELY different if the initial impacted group was a group hate groups like Falwell's Moral Majority actually care about. They were HAPPY to see gays die like flies. That is the history and you can never erase it.

The topic is about Reagan and his horribly inadequate, anti-gay non-response to Aids. If you want to talk about Bush start a new thread. Don't you dare try to divert this by accusing me of racism.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest, most revered US President of the 20th century. If those gay rights activists had flipped off portraits of Johnson or Nixon (or Wilson or Hoover) this story probably never would have made the news. But do that to Reagan and you've crossed the line in the eyes of the vast majority of American people. His domination of Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984 were epic. Reagan is the president with a week long funeral and practically non-stop TV coverage with even CNN singing his praises. His funeral was visited by more world leaders and historical figures than any president before him. A funeral with a guest list and length that won't be surpassed by an American leader in our lifetimes. Now THAT is history that you can never erase.

I agree Reagan is popular and worshipped by right wingers. I am not trying to deny that. It is YOU who is trying to whitewash his record on Aids. I am not saying most people care about his record on Aids. I am saying you'll never succeed in erasing the truth about it. Typical of you to try to twist things this way. Accusing me of a denial I never did but running from your own denial.

The spending was totally inadequate. The attention was totally inadequate.

Maybe it was, but nothing Reagan could have done would have cured AIDS. It takes many years to find a cure for a disease and we have not cured the common cold or cancer after many years and many studies.

I agree Reagan is popular and worshipped by right wingers. I am not trying to deny that. It is YOU who is trying to whitewash his record on Aids. I am not saying most people care about his record on Aids. I am saying you'll never succeed in erasing the truth about it. Typical of you to try to twist things this way. Accusing me of a denial I never did but running from your own denial.

Let me get this straight, people were running around pretty much having indiscriminate unprotected sex, some using used needles to inject illegal drugs, and it's all Reagan's fault for not protecting them from themselves? Yep, there's denial alright, not of history, but responsibility.

I agree Reagan is popular and worshipped by right wingers. I am not trying to deny that. It is YOU who is trying to whitewash his record on Aids. I am not saying most people care about his record on Aids. I am saying you'll never succeed in erasing the truth about it. Typical of you to try to twist things this way. Accusing me of a denial I never did but running from your own denial.

Let me get this straight, people were running around prettty much having indiscriminate unprotected sex, some using used needles to inject illegal drugs, and it's all Reagan's fault for not protecting them from themselves? Yep, there's denial alright, not of history, but responsibility.

And to think how Obama hasn't yet closed down all the McDonald's and breweries yet as millions die from diabetes and heart and liver disease.

Immediately the flaw in histrionic and hyberbolic argument becomes clear. Louder and shriller usually just leaves your flank exposed.

I agree Reagan is popular and worshipped by right wingers. I am not trying to deny that. It is YOU who is trying to whitewash his record on Aids. I am not saying most people care about his record on Aids. I am saying you'll never succeed in erasing the truth about it. Typical of you to try to twist things this way. Accusing me of a denial I never did but running from your own denial.

Let me get this straight, people were running around pretty much having indiscriminate unprotected sex, some using used needles to inject illegal drugs, and it's all Reagan's fault for not protecting them from themselves? Yep, there's denial alright, not of history, but responsibility.

Rewriting history again. At the beginning of the pandemic we didn't know the specific facts about the transmission of Aids for YEARS. At that time in history before the facts became clear, almost NOBODY was using condoms. Again, I was there at the center of the storm. I know what was going on. Were you there?

I agree Reagan is popular and worshipped by right wingers. I am not trying to deny that. It is YOU who is trying to whitewash his record on Aids. I am not saying most people care about his record on Aids. I am saying you'll never succeed in erasing the truth about it. Typical of you to try to twist things this way. Accusing me of a denial I never did but running from your own denial.

Let me get this straight, people were running around pretty much having indiscriminate unprotected sex, some using used needles to inject illegal drugs, and it's all Reagan's fault for not protecting them from themselves? Yep, there's denial alright, not of history, but responsibility.

Rewriting history again. At the beginning of the pandemic we didn't know the specific facts about the transmission of Aids for YEARS. At that time in history before the facts became clear, almost NOBODY was using condoms. Again, I was there at the center of the storm. I know what was going on. Were you there?

I'm not rewriting anything, but you are trying to ignore the facts. So, you are telling me you guys never heard of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, etc and still chose not to use protection?

Whatever you all do in private is your business, but don't blame Reagan or the rest of us for your community's ignorance, irresponsible actions, or the results that followed.

I agree Reagan is popular and worshipped by right wingers. I am not trying to deny that. It is YOU who is trying to whitewash his record on Aids. I am not saying most people care about his record on Aids. I am saying you'll never succeed in erasing the truth about it. Typical of you to try to twist things this way. Accusing me of a denial I never did but running from your own denial.

Let me get this straight, people were running around pretty much having indiscriminate unprotected sex, some using used needles to inject illegal drugs, and it's all Reagan's fault for not protecting them from themselves? Yep, there's denial alright, not of history, but responsibility.

Rewriting history again. At the beginning of the pandemic we didn't know the specific facts about the transmission of Aids for YEARS. At that time in history before the facts became clear, almost NOBODY was using condoms. Again, I was there at the center of the storm. I know what was going on. Were you there?

I'm not rewriting anything, but you are trying to ignore the facts. So, you are telling me you guys never heard of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, etc and still chose not to use protection? Whatever you all do in private is your business, but don't blame Ronnie or the rest of us for your ignorance.

During that era, Americans didn't use condoms. Not gays. Not straights. Syphilis wasn't big and the clap was considered like a cold. Easy fix. Different times. The huge early wave of infections happened during this era. I don't know what is your age or nationality, but like I said, I was there on the front lines of the pandemic. If you haven't read extensively on the era from sources like Randy Shilts or you weren't there, don't assume you have any idea what it was really like.

Also, you've got to realize people simply did not know how it was spread in the earlier stages of the pandemic. For a long time a lot of people thought it might even be an airborne disease or caused by kissing.