I don't know if you consider USA Today neutral, but here you go: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
Alzheimer's jokes aren't funny, and anyone that makes fun of this condition is a ****ing *******. Saying that, I'm going to hope and assume that Another Brother's joke was not Alzheimer's related... I just hope when the man actually does die, those who want to make jokes will choose to show some class and keep it to themselves.
Young gay men don't vote republican, so you couldn't really expect reagan to make that a big priority could you?
I wouldn't say anyone. RM95's Girl and her family make jokes about it...that's one of the best ways they can deal with their 54 year-old husband/father having the disease.
This talks about biological weapons and confirms what I know - that we didn't supply Iraq with biological weapons, but research grade stuff under a legal program. From the article : "I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector. " I'm more curious about the chemical weapon ties. Some people characterize the U.S. work with Iraq during the 80's as if the U.S. gave Saddam the weapons and laughed while they were used. I don't think that is the most accurate way to look at the situation. From what research I've done it seems as if the U.S. aided Iraq in their war with Iran as at the time Iran was considered a bigger threat (and probably rightfully so). Times have changed and Iraq emerged later as a bigger threat (the Iranian revolution helped alot with that perception). I'm open to the idea that the U.S. may have supplied chemical weapons to Iraq, however, I just haven't seen any evidence. I've read web sites that talk about the connections but they are, IMO, just speculating. Plus, the sources tend to be left leaning.
You're right BGM, but guys like Rocketman Tex and others are so damn anti-conservative I wouldn't be suprised if they cut off their right arms, rather than admit they made tastless jokes, again make it look like we are the evil by portraying Reagan as a horrible, gay-hating communist. I frankly don't give a flying **** if you hate what Reagan did or not, But it pisses me off that you would stoop so low as to make jokes about this man's illness seeing as he wouldn't even be able to defend himself. But I guess thats just the usual par around here. So I guess I'll just have to forget how Reagan solved the Iran hostage crisis his first day being elected, after Jimmy Carter sat on his southern ass for the 444 days those 50 people were held hostage in Tehran. Also, we'll just have to look over the fact that Reagan's budget plan reduced unemployment from 11% to 5% by the end of 1982, and how inflation dropped from 12% in 1980 to 4% by 1984, so that must be where all the "homeless people" came from, even though more good jobs were produced during the Reagan administration than at any other time in America's History. and we'll just look over the fact that Reagan's lower taxes and less government regulation benefitted all Americans. Its no biggie, I can understand your logic.
I think it's beyond the pale to make fun of anyone's illness. That said, your stuff on Reagan is pretty well simplified, moe's. Carter hardly sat on his ass. He tried very hard to free the hostages. To suggest otherwise is pretty harsh. Reagan was in the happy position of following Carter. Once Carter was gone, the Ayatollah freed the hostages of his own volition. Didn't take some kind of miracle cure on Reagan's part. And, of course, there's the October Surprise angle for those who buy into such things. And, yes, Reagan presided over an economic boom. (Funny, by the way, how everyone seems to give credit to a sitting president they like when the news is good and says a prez has nothing to do with the economy when it's bad. Like, stupid funny.) That boom resulted in then-record deficits. He borrowed from the future to pay for his boom and it took a combination of Clinton and the internet boom to clear Reagan's bad debts. And, of course, it took less than two years of Bush to bring the deficit back in full force. I'd stick to the Cold War stuff when propping Reagan. That's an accomplishment us biased lefties can't very well refute.
Your devotion to a man that even the Secret Service nick named the "old man" is making me a little verklempt. ..... talk amongst yourselves.... here I'll give you a topic. The Reagan era trickle down (or voodoo as Bush I called it) economics may have boosted an economy with huge inflation, but at the cost of the biggest defecit in world history. So was the trickle down referring to money that was coming down to poorer Americans or the term used to describe the rich pissing on America's lower class? Discuss.
During Reaganomics we went from a two-parent working household to one. During Reaganomics drugs swept through my neighborhood. During Reaganomics I had my first taste of government cheese. Bad times.
Let's compare- 1985- Ronald Reagan has not acknowledged AIDS, HIV is spread mainly through homosexual acts and IV drug use, the homosexual community is well aware of the disease, HIV infection increases among young gay men. 2002- AIDS is the pet cause of cultural elitists across America, Red Ribbons promoting HIV awareness are EVERYWHERE, a disproportionate amount of money is spent on education and research concerning HIV/AIDS, the entire freaking world knows about the disease and what causes it, HIV infection increases among young gay men. If you want to live in your fantasy world and blame Ronald Reagan, go ahead- you will still be wrong.
Ah, I hate typing up posts in a rush and not having time to elaborate... Okay, the situation you mention is very interesting and probably not all that uncommon. I had a grandmother who had Alzheimer's, and we were all very sad about that. I probably should amend my statement by saying that jokes by people on the outside in regards to someone's condition are bleeping a-holes.
Here is a very informative and interesting look at Reaganomics. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ufd_reaganomics.html
Young being the operative word in both cases. Just because someone has gay sex does not mean they are part of the gay community at large and HIV education is not a one time thing. Half of all new HIV cases are younger than 25 years old. are you saying they deserve what they got and that RR was right to ignore the problem until it became a threat to the straight community? By the way, while gay men make up over 60% of HIV cases in the U.S., more than 80% of HIV cases worldwide are caused by HETEROsexual sex. So if you want to keep believing that this is and always has been a gay disease then go ahead - you will still be wrong.
CNN posted premature obituaries for Reagan, Bob Hope, Cheney and Castro check out this link for more info!! I think this is where the rumour got started!
You are not doing a very good job of defending your original claim. In fact, you are supporting my claim that Reagan's lack of knowledge about HIV didn't change the result for gay men. Nice try insulting me, but I don't choose to play. I never said anybody "deserves" HIV. Also, the threat to the heterosexual community was always overblown for one simple reason. The risk of contracting HIV from one act of intercourse has been estimated to be at least twice as high from man to woman as it is from woman to man (http://www.kff.org/content/archive/1207/stdfct.html). Outlaw, show me where I said that HIV is a gay disease. Wait, let me save you time- I never said that. HIV in the United States is 100% preventable, but several groups of people are allowing the disease to continue (mainly homosexual men, bisexual cheating spouses, and IV drug users).
On this whole AIDS and Reagan thing, you guys need to agree to disagree. This thread needs another post about that like a fish needs a bicycle.
Actually it was very clear exactly what you thought about gay men and it was abundantly clear that you didn't care what happened to them. Spin all you want, doesn't change what you said in the first place.
