Who's Mug Shall Grace The $10 Bill?

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Who's your choice to grace the $10 bill?

Alexander Hamilton (current)
5
42%
Ronald Reagan (proposed)
0
No votes
John F. Kennedy (who uses 50 cent pieces?)
3
25%
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (put someone else on the dime)
4
33%
 
Total votes: 12

Salt Shaker Tree
Senior Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:02 pm
Location: Near the lake

Postby Salt Shaker Tree » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:21 am

Since Ronny Raygun put the country in further debt, didn't give a damn about the poor, people with AIDS, the mentally ill by making them homeless, I propose special currency for these folks as well as for those who are in debt and going bankrupt.
Negative currency. Coins and bills like -$5 -$10, -$20, -$50 etc, etc with Raygun's face and likeness on the front of both coin and paper.

Dennis
Forum Addict
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:45 am

Salt Shaker Tree wrote:Since Ronny Raygun put the country in further debt, didn't give a damn about the poor, people with AIDS, the mentally ill by making them homeless, I propose special currency for these folks as well as for those who are in debt and going bankrupt.
Negative currency. Coins and bills like -$5 -$10, -$20, -$50 etc, etc with Raygun's face and likeness on the front of both coin and paper.
You know maybe if drugies would have cleaned their needles and sexually promiscuous folks would have used condoms AIDS never would have been a problem. The only folks that really get my sympathy there is the patients who contracted it from blood transfusions, but that is the fault of the folks who brought it into the system, and the Red Crosses slowness in creating a blood screening program, not the Reagan�s or the Federal Governments fault. I did not see Mondale or Dukakis or the DNC making it much of their platforms in the elections during the 80's.

States had the responsibility of taking care of their mentally ill residents, they can do it better locally on an individual level, it is not a federal job to be done.

Reagan himself smartly pushed for and signed a bill that requires a President to be dead for 25 years before a coin or bill carries their Image. So really it is a moot point right now anyhow.

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:38 am

Dennis wrote:You know maybe if drugies would have cleaned their needles and sexually promiscuous folks would have used condoms AIDS never would have been a problem.

Yeah, and maybe if Europe had killed off all those pesky rats in the 13th century, they'd never have had to deal with Bubonic Plague. Hindsight is 20/20, ain't it, Denny?

Your compassion on this issue is fuckin' overwhelming. You should really read the following (though I suspect you won't):

Reagan's AIDS Legacy

I mean, ol' Dutch never even uttered the acronym until 1987, some six years and 20,000+ deaths following the first discovery of what was still a mysterious disease.

The only folks that really get my sympathy there is the patients who contracted it from blood transfusions, but that is the fault of the folks who brought it into the system, and the Red Crosses [sic] slowness in creating a blood screening program, not the Reagan�s or the Federal Governments fault.

Wow. Falwell and Buchanan would be proud. God was just teachin' those homos a lesson, huh? Don't you think the Red Cross might have been able to develop a screening program sooner with a little support from the feds?

States had the responsibility of taking care of their mentally ill residents, they can do it better locally on an individual level, it is not a federal job to be done.

Not when their federal funding is slashed they can't. You're not too savvy on the fiduciary ties between states and the feds now are ya, Dennis?

Reagan himself smartly pushed for and signed a bill that requires a President to be dead for 25 years before a coin or bill carries their Image. So really it is a moot point right now anyhow.

Yeah, I guess that's what he was doing in lieu of addressing this hideous epidemic. Thanks for that, Ron. Way to focus on the shit that matters most!

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14213
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Postby Ned Flanders » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:44 am

C'mon Chuck. Dennis makes a few good points. It was know fairly early that using comdoms, practicing safe sex and closing the bath housese would slow the spread of AIDS. But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue. This wasted valuable time and resources.

I recommend the book "The Band Played On". A pretty balance and interesting look at the early years of the disease.

As for the money question, I think the face of Bill Clinton should grace the one-dollar bill. I mean, what could be more appropriate than Billy-Jeff's grinnin' mug peeking out from behind a stripper's g-string at "gentlemens'" clubs across the country???
Last edited by Ned Flanders on Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Postby pjbogart » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:47 am

The State v. Federal Government argument is the REAL issue of the Republican party, though it seems to get lost in the shuffle when convenient (federal abortion laws, federal money to faith based charities, etc.)

The problem with the State v. Federal argument isn't so much who is better equiped to handle the problem... you can pay your taxes close to home or far away, the choice is yours. The real issue is, can Texas be trusted to protect the rights of US citizens if the Federal government didn't place minimum standards? I think most people would admit that tyrannical majorities can be quite unfair on occasion... that's why we have a Constitution.

white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:02 am

Dennis wrote:You know maybe if drugies would have cleaned their needles and sexually promiscuous folks would have used condoms AIDS never would have been a problem.


A person can contract it by having sex ONE TIME, you dumb fucker.

white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:08 am

Ned Flanders wrote: But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue.


BULLSHIT. It became a political issue because the Reagan administration was doing NOTHING about it.

Dennis
Forum Addict
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:13 am

Chuck_Schick wrote:
Dennis wrote:You know maybe if drugies would have cleaned their needles and sexually promiscuous folks would have used condoms AIDS never would have been a problem.

Yeah, and maybe if Europe had killed off all those pesky rats in the 13th century, they'd never have had to deal with Bubonic Plague. Hindsight is 20/20, ain't it, Denny?

Your compassion on this issue is fuckin' overwhelming. You should really read the following (though I suspect you won't):

Reagan's AIDS Legacy

I mean, ol' Dutch never even uttered the acronym until 1987, some six years and 20,000+ deaths following the first discovery of what was still a mysterious disease.

The only folks that really get my sympathy there is the patients who contracted it from blood transfusions, but that is the fault of the folks who brought it into the system, and the Red Crosses [sic] slowness in creating a blood screening program, not the Reagan�s or the Federal Governments fault.

Wow. Falwell and Buchanan would be proud. God was just teachin' those homos a lesson, huh? Don't you think the Red Cross might have been able to develop a screening program sooner with a little support from the feds?

States had the responsibility of taking care of their mentally ill residents, they can do it better locally on an individual level, it is not a federal job to be done.

Not when their federal funding is slashed they can't. You're not too savvy on the fiduciary ties between states and the feds now are ya, Dennis?

Reagan himself smartly pushed for and signed a bill that requires a President to be dead for 25 years before a coin or bill carries their Image. So really it is a moot point right now anyhow.

Yeah, I guess that's what he was doing in lieu of addressing this hideous epidemic. Thanks for that, Ron. Way to focus on the shit that matters most!
The Dems controled Congress for Reagans entire term and the Senate during most of that time as well, why did they not get AIDS funding slipped into the budget? They could have gotten atleast test programs through, but they did not realy even try either. It was not on most of the nation's radar screen until Rock Hudson passed away from it. I don't condemn anyone just for being gay, but the gay lifestyle of the 70's and 80's was much more hedonistic then the Hetro lifestyle and that is what spread AIDS so fast through the community. If being gay is about love for another person, who just happens to be of the same gender, then that was unexcuseable. The International and the American Red Crosses are huge organizations, and they blew off the epidemic for too long. When they finally started to speak up, then the ball started rolling on screening of the blood pretty quickly, so that by 1988 lots of folks thought of giving blood as a free confidential AIDS test. Even the World Health Organization blew it off for too long, to blaim that on Reagan is B.S. He nor I saw it as God smiting those he disapproved of, but rather it was just bad luck that followed bad personal choices.

States have made themselves too dependent on Federal funds, it is part of why taxes and the defict are so high. If states would take care of the services the money will not be wasted at an additional ten stages of buracracy and can be much more reactive to actual needs. If the states need more money then THEY should raise taxes,not the federal government.

Ronald Wilson Reagan deserves a great legacy, but he was right in putting off any introduction of his image on our currancy.

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14213
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Postby Ned Flanders » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:14 am

white_rabbit wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote: But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue.


BULLSHIT. It became a political issue because the Reagan administration was doing NOTHING about it.


Read the book I recommended. The health authorities in SF wanted to close the bath houses, but some in the Gay community protested because their "rights" would be violated.

white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:18 am

Ned Flanders wrote:
white_rabbit wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote: But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue.


BULLSHIT. It became a political issue because the Reagan administration was doing NOTHING about it.


Read the book I recommended. The health authorities in SF wanted to close the bath houses, but some in the Gay community protested because their "rights" would be violated.


I've read the book. I read it when it first came out. At that time there was no medical proof, only suspicion that it was contracted through sex, because the Reagan administration would not put an research money in the NIH budget to research the epidemic.

How would you react if for some mysterious reason the breeders started dying off, the gay community seemed safe and controlled the government and their band-aid solution was "well just stop having sex."
Last edited by white_rabbit on Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dennis
Forum Addict
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:18 am

white_rabbit wrote:
Dennis wrote:You know maybe if drugies would have cleaned their needles and sexually promiscuous folks would have used condoms AIDS never would have been a problem.


A person can contract it by having sex ONE TIME, you dumb fucker.
Sure but if that other person is not having sex with anyone else you two are pretty safe, wear a condom and you are VERY safe. Go have sex with multiple partners in a short period of time with out a condom and you are at very HIGH risk. If folks were not so promiscuous and/or had worn condoms then AIDS would not have spread nearly so wide or so fast. That is fact,you dumb fucker. :roll:

Dennis
Forum Addict
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:23 am

white_rabbit wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:
white_rabbit wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote: But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue.


BULLSHIT. It became a political issue because the Reagan administration was doing NOTHING about it.


Read the book I recommended. The health authorities in SF wanted to close the bath houses, but some in the Gay community protested because their "rights" would be violated.


I've read the book. I read it when it first came out. At that time there was no medical proof, only suspicion that it was contracted through sex, because the Reagan administration would not put an research money in the NIH budget to research the epidemic.

How would you react if for some mysterious reason the breeders started dying off, the gay community seemed safe and controlled the government and their band-aid solutions, "well just stop having sex."
Some times Band-aid solutions are all that you have. Look at skin cancer, not much of a cure after billions have been spent on research, and it kills many more folks then AIDS has(at least in this country and the developed world). So we tell folks to wear their sun screen and limit their exposure to the sun. That is a band aid too, should we stop wearing our SPF as a political statement?

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:34 am

Ned Flanders wrote:It was know fairly early that using comdoms, practicing safe sex and closing the bath housese would slow the spread of AIDS.

Yeah, and you know who were the first proponents of safe sex, Ned? AIDS organizations founded by members of the group most affected which, incidentally, received no federal funding for their plight, noble though it was.

Check out the following link for a history of the early years of AIDS research:

http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

By 1982 a number of AIDS specific voluntary organisations had been set up in the USA. They included the San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF), AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA), and Gay Men's health Crisis (GMHC). In November 1982 the first AIDS organisation, the 'Terry Higgins Trust', was formally established in the UK, and by this time a number of AIDS organisations were already producing safer sex advice for gay men.


Don't you think it would have been nice if DHHS had been broadcasting that message as well? But no, they were but a silent tool of the Reagan administration, complicit in its denial. I mean, just because some in the medical community understood the means of transmission doesn't mean that knowledge trickled down to the general populace.

Ned Flanders wrote:But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue. This wasted valuable time and resources.

I would suggest your boy Ronnie was the one who made it a political hot potato by ignoring it entirely. Reagan wouldn't have been saddled with the whole "silence = death" stigma if only he'd mentioned the damn disease sometime in his first term.

The notion that the homosexual community were wasting time and resources is pitifully laughable, Ned. What resources? The government hadn't even acknowledged the disease, much less allocated any funding or resources to combat it. Yeah, it's all the fags' fault, I guess. How dare they express concern over the gradual decimation of their community and the public apathy toward same.

Ned Flanders wrote:I recommend the book "The Band Played On". A pretty balance and interesting look at the early years of the disease.

Funny you should mention it. Here's what one review had to say:
Publishers Weekly wrote:The book stands as a definitive reminder of the shameful injustice inflicted on this nation by the institutions in which we put our trust . . . a landmark work.

Hmmm. "Institutions in which we put our trust" is an interesting phrase. I don't suppose one of those would be the White House, huh?

Are you sure you read the whole thing, Ned?

Dennis
Forum Addict
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:40 am

Chuck_Schick wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:It was know fairly early that using comdoms, practicing safe sex and closing the bath housese would slow the spread of AIDS.

Yeah, and you know who were the first proponents of safe sex, Ned? AIDS organizations founded by members of the group most affected which, incidentally, received no federal funding for their plight, noble though it was.

Check out the following link for a history of the early years of AIDS research:

http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

By 1982 a number of AIDS specific voluntary organisations had been set up in the USA. They included the San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF), AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA), and Gay Men's health Crisis (GMHC). In November 1982 the first AIDS organisation, the 'Terry Higgins Trust', was formally established in the UK, and by this time a number of AIDS organisations were already producing safer sex advice for gay men.


Don't you think it would have been nice if DHHS had been broadcasting that message as well? But no, they were but a silent tool of the Reagan administration, complicit in its denial. I mean, just because some in the medical community understood the means of transmission doesn't mean that knowledge trickled down to the general populace.

Ned Flanders wrote:But some in the Gay community wanted to make AIDS a political, not medical issue. This wasted valuable time and resources.

I would suggest your boy Ronnie was the one who made it a political hot potato by ignoring it entirely. Reagan wouldn't have been saddled with the whole "silence = death" stigma if only he'd mentioned the damn disease sometime in his first term.

The notion that the homosexual community were wasting time and resources is pitifully laughable, Ned. What resources? The government hadn't even acknowledged the disease, much less allocated any funding or resources to combat it. Yeah, it's all the fags' fault, I guess. How dare they express concern over the gradual decimation of their community and the public apathy toward same.

Ned Flanders wrote:I recommend the book "The Band Played On". A pretty balance and interesting look at the early years of the disease.

Funny you should mention it. Here's what one review had to say:
Publishers Weekly wrote:The book stands as a definitive reminder of the shameful injustice inflicted on this nation by the institutions in which we put our trust . . . a landmark work.

Hmmm. "Institutions in which we put our trust" is an interesting phrase. I don't suppose one of those would be the White House, huh?

Are you sure you read the whole thing, Ned?
This is a nation with a Government of the People, by the People, and for the People. If the people were spreading the world, why did it need the Governments seal of approval for the advice of wearing a condom to be taken seriously? If you think the government is always hiding things and telling lies, how would their indorcement have helped spread the word any better then the private organization that was trageting the main victem group directly?

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:48 am

Dennis wrote:It was not on most of the nation's radar screen until Rock Hudson passed away from it.

Horseshit! It wasn't on Nancy Reagan's radar screen until Hudson admitted having it. I wasn't even old enough to drive in the early 80s, yet it was on my radar screen. In fact, I remember when I first heard about it on the news. My family was staying in some motel on our way to Arizona for vacation. The year was 1981, and it was the beginning of a pretty frightful time for a young man (a "straight" man, no less) who had only recently begun to feel the tug of his burgeoning libidinal urges.

Not on the nation's radar screen, my ass. Don't project your own ignorance upon the rest of us, Dennis.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests