Ronald Reagan Mark II (the soap box thread)

[Angela Harlem]

.. 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.

 

[U2Kitten]

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.

 

[verte76]

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.

 

[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.

 

[joyfulgirl]

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.

 

[verte76]

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.

 

[ThatGuy]

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

 

[joyfulgirl]

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.

 

[verte76]

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.

 

[Scarletwine]

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.

 

[U2Kitten]

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[U2Kitten]

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]

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.

 

[ThatGuy]

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.

 

[U2Kitten]

It wasn't you who offended me.

I'm worried about losing friends from other parts of the board by having different opinions than them, and it's just not worth it to me, that's why I want to stop.

 

[ThatGuy]

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I can respect your decision. Your contributions here will be missed.

 

[U2Kitten]

Thanks but I think most people just want me to shut up and go away.

If you do want to ask me anything else about my posts or anything my email is easy, u2kitten@yahoo.com.

 

[ThatGuy]

If everyone here had the same point of view this place would be very boring.

 

[Scarletwine]

If everyone here had the same point of view this place would be very boring.

Absolutely. We like people to have different opinions.

 

[meegannie]

My opinion on this has absolutely nothing to do with Reagan's political party. In fact, I voted for him the first time. I am just mystified as to why it's more 'decent' and somehow more noble to not speak ill of the dead than it is to speak ill of the living. It is LIFE that I respect and I do also respect the pain of those who are having to deal with death as I have done many times in my life. I have lost a lot of very close friends and family members and part of my mourning process has always included honesty about the difficulties I had with these loved ones as well as their beautiful qualities. I personally think that's completely normal and what doesn't feel authentic to me is a pollyanna-type behavior/attitude around death and suddenly saying nicer things about someone after they died than when they were alive. I just don't get it, I don't get why it's not 'human decency' to say something simple like, "I couldn't stand Reagan's politics but may he rest in peace." I haven't read every post in these Reagan threads so I can't say that the kind of insensitivity you are referring to doesn't exist here, but what I've seen has been pretty reasonable.

joyfulgirl

 

[verte76]

If everyone here had the same point of view this place would be very boring.

It'd be boring as hell without *all* honest opinions, be they liberal, conservative, left-wing or right-wing or whatever. If it were all one thing it'd be a bunch of "preaching to the choir". This would get old fast. I'm one of the people who believes in respecting the dead, so to speak, and didn't like Reagan's policies. I demonstrated against them. Am I supposed to lie and claim that I liked the guy's politics? Since when was lying the right thing to do? I can say I think the guy was honest, sincere, fundamentally decent and funny, but I can also say I didn't like his policies, and only be telling the truth.

 

[Dreadsox]

There is a difference between disliking someones policies and pouring out venom, despite some facts that contradict.

EDIT----------------------------------


Wow....a few corona's toonight...and I am incohearant......Spelling..LOL

Bye

 

[beli]

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!

Hi Kitty, if its me you are paraphrasing here, thats not what I mean. Im actually really quite anti abortion. Its only the small minority of cases that we have discussed that I maybe sorta kinda find it 'acceptable' (not a good choice of words but I cant think of another at the moment)

As for the eating, I dont mind people eating themselves to death as long as they pay for their own self inflicted medical costs..... but most governments would be highly unlikely to do this as the creeping majority of voters are obese - gotta keep the voters happy. Hence my comments in the other thread.

Feel free to pm at anytime. And continue to fire away with your opinions. Yes they are just about always different from mine but so what.

 

[nbcrusader]

The Reagan Funeral Protest Group

 

[stammer476]

 

[verte76]

Holy smokes where'd you get that pic of the protesters nb? Not exactly my type.........

 

[nbcrusader]

The BBC

- a sick collection

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Re: The Reagan Funeral Protest Group

What a bizarre collection of people. Disgusting and bizarre.

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

Is the funeral thing over with?
I stopped watching tv, and reading the news, until all this Reagan hysteria settles down.