. 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.

Hmmm, I wear my panties on the outside, 'a la Batman', but don't worry you are doing just fine.

Again, I was there at the center of the storm. I know what was going on. Were you there?

I was there and people that I knew died. However, it was not Reagan's fault and nothing he could have done would have saved any lives.

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.

So...the people on the "front lines" are excused for taking part in behavior that endangered them and others around them because the disease was in the early stages and little was known about it, but at the same time Reagan is vilified by those same people for not doing more himself during those early stages when little was known about it, even by the community it was killing?

So...the people on the "front lines" are excused for taking part in behavior that endangered them and others around them because the disease was in the early stages and little was known about it, but at the same time Reagan is vilified by those same people for not doing more himself during those early stages when little was known about it, even by the community it was killing?

You know when you cut the legs off a high horse like that it will leave snail trails everywhere it goes

Again, I was there at the center of the storm. I know what was going on. Were you there?

I was there and people that I knew died. However, it was not Reagan's fault and nothing he could have done would have saved any lives.

You are so wrong. Reagan's unforgivable inaction on Aids did indeed kill MANY people. For your right wing political agenda, you twist what this discussion is about. Yes the people hit in the first wave, NOTHING could have been done by anyone. But a STRONG REACTION to that first wave could have saved many thousands and if that concern had been globalized, many millions. The point is Reagan did almost nothing. Once evidence was in about transmission he FOUGHT education programs about safe gay sex because his party was against ANY gay sex. He opposed NEEDLE EXCHANGE programs for drug addicts. His war on drugs put so many extra people in jail where many of them got Aids (condoms not encouraged or provided) from prison sex. The reaction to Legionnaire's disease was epic. The reaction to Aids, the global pandemic of our era, was POLITICAL and as suggested in this link a kind of passive genocide. Your denial is simply morally wrong. It makes me sick to think someone who was there could be so callous just because you want to make apologies for Reagan.

http://lgbtpov.front...ence-over-aids/

Reading these sickening apologies for Reagan and mocking the history, mocking my personal experience as a witness/survivor makes me feel even more strongly that the moral impulse to denial Reagan's inaction is psycho-politically related to holocaust denial.

Already, some said that Ronald Reagan would be remembered in history books for one thing beyond all else: He was the man who had let AIDS rage through America, the leader of the government that when challenged to action had placed politics above the health of the American people.”

So...the people on the "front lines" are excused for taking part in behavior that endangered them and others around them because the disease was in the early stages and little was known about it, but at the same time Reagan is vilified by those same people for not doing more himself during those early stages when little was known about it, even by the community it was killing?

You know when you cut the legs off a high horse like that it will leave snail trails everywhere it goes

Again, you are TWISTING the issues! Nobody could have saved those hit early. After that, massive action on PREVENTION yes from the government could have/would have saved many. Where was Reagan? Nowhere. Invisible.

Already, some said that Ronald Reagan would be remembered in history books for one thing beyond all else: He was the man who had let AIDS rage through America, the leader of the government that when challenged to action had placed politics above the health of the American people.”

Reagan "was the man you let AIDS rage through America"? Whoever originally wrote that must be one of the most ignorant people in the history of mankind. Does anyone really believe that anyone could have stopped AIDS? No one in their right mind that's for sure.

BTW - I've read where even today - with all we know about AIDS - there are segments of the gay community who still won't use condoms. I sure hope those idiots don't blame Reagan or anyone else for AIDS "raging through America".

On Samui I knew at least two straight men who wouldn't wear condoms because they said it was a myth that a man could get AIDS from unprotected sex with a woman. If they end up with AIDS, should they blame Reagan or take some of the responsibility themselves?

So...the people on the "front lines" are excused for taking part in behavior that endangered them and others around them because the disease was in the early stages and little was known about it, but at the same time Reagan is vilified by those same people for not doing more himself during those early stages when little was known about it, even by the community it was killing?

You know when you cut the legs off a high horse like that it will leave snail trails everywhere it goes

Again, you are TWISTING the issues! Nobody could have saved those hit early. After that, massive action on PREVENTION yes from the government could have/would have saved many. Where was Reagan? Nowhere. Invisible.

I wore condoms in the 80's and I didn't need the government to tell me to do so. I figured out on my own that it was a good idea.

To say that the gay community in San Francisco in the early 1980's needed Reagan (or any other politician) to tell them to wear condoms implies that former were complete morons. At least the intravenous drug users had an excuse - they were too high and addicted to know any better.

Not one of you Reagan denialists has asserted that the Reagan response (almost no response, just let them die, they are undesirables and his political base HATED them) would have been the same if the group getting hit hard first was from a DESIRABLE social group that the Reagan political base approved. You can't assert that because you know it isn't true. That says it all and totally proves my point that Reagan denialists are completely wrong.

Trying to suggest that Reagan doesn't have a black mark on his record due to his horrible non-response to the Aids pandemic (and the obvious connection that the early victims were mostly stigmatized people already) will simply not stand the test of history. His black mark is eternal. You can argue how many lives would have or wouldn't been saved if Reagan had treated Aids as we know he would have treated another pandemic in which the victims were of a "favored" group (obviously much better) but the black mark will never go away, and denialists are fighting a hopeless and shameful cause. I indeed would be VERY ASHAMED to be trying to wipe away this history. There is no excuse for the lack of leadership Reagan showed around Aids. Not then, not now, not ever.

http://nomadicpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/03/nemesis-in-washington-how-evangelists.html

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "

The Point is not History

One of the more unfortunate aspects of studying history is the fact that we shall never know about the history that never happened. We are therefore unable to say what might have happened if Reagan had not been so completely indebted to the Religious Right and organizations like the Moral Majority. We cannot know what would have occurred had he not had advisers like Bauer, Bennet or Meese. We can never know what the results of a swift and concerted plan of action in the early stages of the AIDS crisis might have reaped. It did not happen.

...

Instead we are left with the reality; we have only what actually happened. A global epidemic in which, since its beginning of the epidemic, nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS-related causes.

That is the history but from history, the wise can learn lessons. What of that? What are the lessons?

The story of the AIDS crisis and the way the Reagan administration handled (or mishandled) is a serious warning about the consequences of allowing religious groups with narrow or prejudicial views to have excessive influence inside the decision making process of the president.

It is, as we have seen, a recipe for disaster.

http://nomadicpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/03/nemesis-in-washington-how-evangelists.html

Not one of you Reagan denialists has asserted that the Reagan response (almost no response, just let them die, they are undesirables and his political base HATED them) would have been the same if the group getting hit hard first was from a DESIRABLE social group that the Reagan political base approved. You can't assert that because you know it isn't true. That says it all and totally proves my point that Reagan denialists are completely wrong.

I guess you missed post #123.

Not one of you Reagan denialists has asserted that the Reagan response (almost no response, just let them die, they are undesirables and his political base HATED them) would have been the same if the group getting hit hard first was from a DESIRABLE social group that the Reagan political base approved. You can't assert that because you know it isn't true. That says it all and totally proves my point that Reagan denialists are completely wrong.

I guess you missed post #123.

I see no connection.

Direct Question:

IF Aids had been exactly the same but instead of first hitting mostly gays and IV drug users, instead it first mostly hit white male heterosexuals (heavy republican voters) would President Reagan's response to Aids have been the SAME as it actually was?

Simple:

YES ___

NO ___

Hint: If you answer YES, you are lying.

Are the Reagan Aids denialists here capable of answering that basic question honestly or not?

He can still be your hero if you admit the truth about this. What would it hurt you to stop the denial?

Not one of you Reagan denialists has asserted that the Reagan response (almost no response, just let them die, they are undesirables and his political base HATED them) would have been the same if the group getting hit hard first was from a DESIRABLE social group that the Reagan political base approved. You can't assert that because you know it isn't true. That says it all and totally proves my point that Reagan denialists are completely wrong.

I guess you missed post #123.

I see no connection.

Direct Question:

IF Aids had been exactly the same but instead of first hitting mostly gays and IV drug users, instead it first mostly hit white male heterosexuals (heavy republican voters) would President Reagan's response to Aids have been the SAME as it actually was?

I would hope not. Any mysterious disease that is somehow affecting 40% of the total population (and probably 90% of the leadership) would naturally demand more attention than one that hit a tiny percentage of the population. That holds true everywhere.

Not one of you Reagan denialists has asserted that the Reagan response (almost no response, just let them die, they are undesirables and his political base HATED them) would have been the same if the group getting hit hard first was from a DESIRABLE social group that the Reagan political base approved. You can't assert that because you know it isn't true. That says it all and totally proves my point that Reagan denialists are completely wrong.

I guess you missed post #123.

I see no connection.

Direct Question:

IF Aids had been exactly the same but instead of first hitting mostly gays and IV drug users, instead it first mostly hit white male heterosexuals (heavy republican voters) would President Reagan's response to Aids have been the SAME as it actually was?

I would hope not. Any mysterious disease that is somehow affecting 40% of the total population (and probably 90% of the leadership) would naturally demand more attention than one that hit a tiny percentage of the population. That holds true everywhere.

So your answer is no. Thank you. So you agree there WAS discrimination against the group(s) that were hit first. Thank you. A little progress. Probably as good as it gets. But your sleazy ploy there didn't go unnoticed. It wasn't so much that it first impacted a small percentage. It was that the small percentage were viciously HATED by Reagan's base. Please face these facts. They won't go away.

I was born in 1963 and sexually acitive in the early 1980s. No, we didn‘t use condoms in Germany then, same as in the US. I have no idea about Reagon, that didn‘t concern us.

Let‘s not get distracted. This thread is about some people who paid disrespect when they were invited to the White House. Everybody agreed that they were out of line.

from my LG-P698f using Thaivisa Connect App

Yes, but my view is they disrespected Obama and the honor of being at a white house event, and that's why they were out of line. For gay people to disrespect Reagan is totally justified, but at a white house event, it's the wrong venue. So to assert that the history behind the disrespect is off topic is not exactly accurate. The TARGET of their disrespect, Reagan, made perfect sense to them; it was not at all random.

Yes in the early 80s condoms just weren't part of mass culture. That was something from a previous generation. Probably they SHOULD have been part of the culture in the environment of the sexual revolution/free/the pill, but again, you can't revise the actual history.

But the other side of this is if a few Tea Party members were seen shooting the middle finger salute to a photo of Obama, ANYWHERE IN THE US, they would be denounced by the radical left wing as racist "tea baggers" and not merely speaking with a political voice.

Strange set of priorities around here.

But the other side of this is if a few Tea Party members were seen shooting the middle finger salute to a photo of Obama, ANYWHERE IN THE US, they would be denounced by the radical left wing as racist "tea baggers" and not merely speaking with a political voice.

Strange set of priorities around here.

We're talking about such actions at white house events.

Whoooosh