Ronald Reagan Mark II (the soap box thread) - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-10-2004, 12:58 PM   #91
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten

.. I'm sorry, hate me all you want, but a lot of the spread of the disease happened because people were careless..

Geez kitten! I wont be geting emotionally attached any time soon Feel free to keep posting.

But that said, I do want to pick on your sentence above There's a mighty difference between 13%/48%/whatever% and a generic 'a lot'. Only statistics can really allow generalisations like this.

Your last paragraph too, that's not education. It's hysteria and fear of the unknown. Mayonaise and rubbish bins are thought to be a problem by those who have no idea. They were aware of AIDS, but they didn't know what exactly they were afraid of. Like you said, it took 3 years for blood to be checked before a transfusion. I dont think we're quite disagreeing on a lot here...lol.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:06 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
Here's a link to a timeline of AIDS...kind of mindblowing to see it all laid out in one place. By the time Reagan began to address it, over 12,000 people had already died. I've lost many, many friends to AIDS, the first one in 1982 and the most recent one on New Year's Eve 2003. In fact, only 2 of my gay friends from the early 80s are still alive and HIV negative and every single one of their friends from that period are dead. On the other hand, all of my friends who never took AZT and are on the new AIDS cocktails are really, really healthy and their viral loads are undetectable. One of my friends has been HIV+ for 18 years, never took AZT, and is healthy as a horse. Thank God for the new meds.


http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/default.asp
So it was 82, I knew it was 82 or 81 it was named. But things were being done even before it was mentioned in public.

I'm sorry about your friends. I don't know what my brother in law took, he never talked about it. We didn't know how sick he was until the very end, he didn't want anyone to know

Your friend who's had it for 18 years might not ever get sick, that happens sometimes. I hope he will be one of the lucky ones.
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:20 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Actually they didn't start dismantling apartheid in South Africa until 1991, when de Klerk was president in South Africa and of course Bush Sr. was president in the U.S. It was de Klerk, elected in 1990, who did away with apartheid, and for that he was nicknamed "the Gorbechev of South Africa". The first multi-racial elections were held in 1994, the year a new national anthem was adopted as well. It was then that Nelson Mandela was elected President.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:22 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:56 PM
But wasn't it pretty much caput for all intents and purposes by the late 80's? Communism didn't fall until 89-91 either, but earlier things had led to its demise.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:34 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
I'm sorry about your friends. I don't know what my brother in law took, he never talked about it. We didn't know how sick he was until the very end, he didn't want anyone to know

Your friend who's had it for 18 years might not ever get sick, that happens sometimes. I hope he will be one of the lucky ones.
Thank you. The friend mentioned who remains healthy after all these years, in addition to the cocktail, is fortunate to have as a best friend a clinical nutritionist specializing in autoimmune illnesses. He has been trying some radical stuff with my friend in terms of alternative therapies and my friend takes massive amounts of supplements that keep his immune system strong and he is able to get them at cost. He is a bit of a ginea pig and this nutritionist will eventually publish his findings in medical journals.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:37 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:56 PM
I really don't remember, to be perfectly honest. I'll have to do more research on de Klerk and the government that came right before his. To be sure, South Africa was considered a "rogue state" because of apartheid before this. But I think apartheid "crashed and burned" because of South Africans, both black and white, not external powers. A South African team wasn't allowed to compete in the Olympics until 1992. In 1992 the 10,000 metres female silver medalist was an Afrikaaner from South Africa; the gold medalist was an African, from Ethiopia. Those two ran a victory lap together, holding hands and holding the flags of their respective countries in their other hands. To me that was one of the most enduring sights from the 1992 Games.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:37 PM   #97
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
But wasn't it pretty much caput for all intents and purposes by the late 80's? Communism didn't fall until 89-91 either, but earlier things had led to its demise.
Apartheid was coming apart at the end of the eighties, but I don't think Reagan can be credited for that. Here's an interesting overview of the history of apartheid in South Africa:

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id340.htm
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:37 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 04:56 PM
This just in...

I have just this minute been informed that our office will be closed tomorrow in honor of Reagan's passing. Not to mourn, but to celebrate. Sorry, I work for radical leftists...don't kill the messenger.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:40 PM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Thanks TG. That's an excellent history of apartheid. I agree, you can't exactly credit Reagan with ending apartheid. Credit goes to de Klerk and Mandela, who earned that Nobel Peace Prize.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:54 PM   #100
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:56 PM
I'm getting a little ill from all the Reagan love on tv.

Having lost a step-brother and all his friends in early 80's, I do blame Reagan for his inaction.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:15 PM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem



Geez kitten! I wont be geting emotionally attached any time soon Feel free to keep posting.

But that said, I do want to pick on your sentence above There's a mighty difference between 13%/48%/whatever% and a generic 'a lot'. Only statistics can really allow generalisations like this.

Your last paragraph too, that's not education. It's hysteria and fear of the unknown. Mayonaise and rubbish bins are thought to be a problem by those who have no idea. They were aware of AIDS, but they didn't know what exactly they were afraid of. Like you said, it took 3 years for blood to be checked before a transfusion. I dont think we're quite disagreeing on a lot here...lol.
You make generalizations that people get sick from eating too much food, what's the difference? People eat too much, smoke too much, drink too much, and have unprotected sex, use dirty needles, and it makes them sick. No one can stop it all. I already told you I had a brother in law who passed from this and he himself said too many people were not cautious enough because they believed it would not happen to them. Yes, I am sick and tired of hearing Reagan totally blamed for all this when he could not control everything himself anyway. If he had asked for ten times the money do you think congress would have approved it? Would the general public have accepted that? Would it have done any good considering it's still not cured today? I would like some direct answers on exactly what Reagan as one person was allegedly supposed to have done!

Denying the factor that a lot of the spreading in the 80's was due to multiple sex partners and unsafe sex, even though people knew the disease was there and spread by sex and all their friends were dying, is unrealistic. By that I mean gays as well as straights, especially straight prostitutes.


The other stories, of course they're hysteria! That's the example I was trying to make, that people in the general public at the time DID know about it, but they were not nonchalant, they were terrified and that often took them down the wrong direction. Because there were so few concrete facts they let their fears and assumptions run away with them. Some of the stories are true and documented, others urban legend or outright lies, all caused by fear of the unknown. I think we can agree on that.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:29 PM   #102
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 03:56 PM
I'm confused. In the first paragraph you say that people should have known better, and changed their lifestyles to minimize the risk of AIDS. You say that they knew how it was spread, and that they shouldn't blame Reagan for not spending enough money on AIDS (for example on things like AIDS education).

Then in the second paragraph you tell about the hysteria surrounding AIDS because people didn't know enough about it, how it was spread, etc.

Which one is it?

Personally I don't completely put Reagan at fault for his funding in the early days of the crisis. But he should have taken a more active role with funding after it was clear that this disease was not going away. And one thing he could have done was to support education and awareness programs that would have dispelled the myths and prevented the hysteria that you wrote about. And, of course, funding for research to investigate how and why AIDS behaved as it did. But he didn't do those things until very late in the game, and I fault him for that.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:43 PM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:56 PM
So this is what I feared, this is why I never used to come here, I know that most of you do not feel the same way I do about a lot of things. While I do not consider myself a 'conservative,'I do want drugs legalized and the war stopped, I can't abide the vehement hatred for all Republicans and any value or position considered 'right wing' that you guys do. I could never stand the double standards, such as, if you want abortions, it's keep the government out of your life, but if I eat too much, the government needs to step in and stop me! I have come to the conclusion that everyone is just as right, and wrong, and biased, as the people they hate, and everyone spouts hatreds in equally vicious tones, the only difference is what side you look at it from. For every bad someone has done, there is good to make up for it, and vice versa. People get set in their ways and argue their points endlessly with no one listening or considering anything they say, so it's all useless. It all gets on my nerves very bad. So don't mind me, I won't post here anymore, I can't afford anyone else to hate me.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:48 PM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
I'm confused. In the first paragraph you say that people should have known better, and changed their lifestyles to minimize the risk of AIDS. You say that they knew how it was spread, and that they shouldn't blame Reagan for not spending enough money on AIDS (for example on things like AIDS education).

Then in the second paragraph you tell about the hysteria surrounding AIDS because people didn't know enough about it, how it was spread, etc.

Which one is it?

The first paragraph applies to those in the communities at high risk, gays, prostitutes, IV drug users. These people were living with the realities and losing friends, so they had to know. But it didn't stop everyone.

The second paragraph applies to the general public, middle America, Aunt Mary Jane and cousin Sally who are goodie goodie and only get their info from the nightly news.

And education WAS there, it was in my school, it was in my Dad's work. There weren't a lot of facts at first and that hurt. But you can't 'educate' people about something you aren't sure about yourself. But it was out there, there's this new disease, it destroys your immune system, we can't cure it. They knew it was spread by sex, but what else? Nobody knew yet so how could they say? To me the prospect that "Reagan" (or the US as a whole) totally ignored this, didn't care and caused people to get sick and die is preposterous.

You forget too that this was not isolated to the US. Did Europe do any better job of containing it or curing it?

Sorry, I had to answer that since it was directed at me.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:49 PM   #105
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Holy crap.

I meant no disrespect. I honestly just wanted you to clarify your position. I thought we were having a pleasant and interesting discussion. I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. I would e-mail you, but I'm not premium. But please feel free to drop me a line.

Edited to add: This was written in response to the first post. I still don't understand how the populace can be educated and uneducated at the same time, but that's okay, opinions don't always have to make sense to anyone else. I mean that sincerely.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com