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

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

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:08 am

Chuck_Schick wrote:
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.
1981 huh? How is this so if the name AIDS didn't come out until November of 1982? You are remembering things that never happaned, maybe you have more in common with President Reagan then you care to admit. AIDS had been talked about in hush tones and known in the gay community in the early 80's but it was Rock Hudson's death and the harrassment of Ryan White that made it jump out to the mainstream of America and forced them to take notice. Reagan mentioned it in public in September of 1985 for the first time, not in 1987 as some would like you to believe, less then three years after the disease was discovered. That is actually pretty fast to go from the lab to the White House.

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 11:27 am

Dennis wrote:1981 huh? How is this so if the name AIDS didn't come out until November of 1982?

Two possibilities, Dennis:

1) The report mentioned a mysterious disease afflicting the homosexual community, but did not invoke the acronym.

2) Okay, so maybe it was summer of '82. I know with certainty that it wasn't any later, because I had not yet entered junior high.

I'm pretty sure it was summer vacation '81. The CDC's first public report was published in June of that year, which would be right around the time of our family getaway. Either way, that still puts me at least 3 years ahead of Hudson's admission he was ill.

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:31 am

Anna Nichole Smith's breasts should adorn the $10!

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

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:34 am

pulsewidth modulation wrote:Anna Nichole Smith's breasts should adorn the $10!
Pre-diet or post-diet?

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10132
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:39 am

So, Chuck's memory is a little bit fuzzy... so what?
His point is that you claim nobody noticed or cared about AIDS until Rock Hudson died and that is patently untrue. I remember when Rock died and I remember thinking how pathetic it was that only when a celebrity kicked it did it become a priority for anybody. But AIDS had been around for years already at that point and those of us paying attention were already aware (and recall, I was not yet a teenager!)

Here's a handy time-line to keep you all from making minor factual errors again:
http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/default.asp

Although it wouldn't be called AIDS until late 1982, the CDC began reporting on the disease in June of 1981. Reagan's first mention of the disease is not until Sep. 1985, and it is only in response to a direct question (he claimed that he'd been working to prevent AIDS for 4 years, but Congress disagreed with that assessment - see article below.) Claiming that Reagan took a stand "three years after the disease was discovered" and that this is "pretty fast" is a pathetic attempt at spin. How long did it take for SARS to make it onto the White House's agenda? Or Mad Cow? Not three years from the first reported case, that's for damn sure.
Anyway, Reagan mentioned AIDS, because it was impossible to get around by then, but he didn't actually confront and discuss the disease until 1987 (contrary to his claims otherwise.)
I mean, here are copies of a couple of articles that demonstrate Reagan's lack of concern prior to that time:


http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1985/ap850902.html
Even though he labels AIDS research a top administration priority, President Reagan has only spoken out once about the deadly disease, and then only when prompted by reporters, says Rep. Gerry E. Studds, the only acknowledged homosexual in Congress.
"... The president said last night it is one of the top priorities of the last four years," the Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview Wednesday. "Under those circumstances, it is more than a little difficult to imagine why he has never mentioned it once before in public."
...Reagan, responding to reporters' questions, said more than $500 million had been spent to try to find ways of combatting AIDS...But Studds said Reagan's requests to Congress for fiscal years 1982 through 1986 were far less than that amount, and the money was appropriated only because Congress went beyond administration requests.


This one demonstrates "The Great Communicator"'s refusal to tell the facts:
http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1985/lt850910.html

Dennis, you will win no arguments pretending that Reagan gave a shit about this disease... oh wait, you don't have any sympathy for people with this disease either. After all, they made a choice. So, presumably, you have no sympathy for victims of car crashes (after all, they chose to drive a car, right?) or for our soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan (after all, there's no draft, they chose to join the military.) Since when is sympathy and empathy reserved only for those who choose the safest path through life?

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

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:40 am

I have a copy of US magazine from 1981, Joan Collins graces the cover and right there on the cover is a lead for an article, "Mysterious cancer killing gay men." It was called GRID back then. Do you expect Chuck to refer to it as GRID or "gay cancer" if he is refering to AIDS pre-82-83? Or are you once again projecting your own ignorance onto others?

And Chuck brought up a legitimate point in that it was the Gay Community that organized ASO's and funded it out of gay pockets and advocated safer sex long before the government/NIH/CDC advocated condom, education or research. Thanks to Ronnie in hell. It was not until 1986 when C Everrett Koop urged education that a government official advocated condom use to stem the spread of AIDS.
Last edited by white_rabbit on Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:45 am

Dennis wrote:
pulsewidth modulation wrote:Anna Nichole Smith's breasts should adorn the $10!
Pre-diet or post-diet?


post for sure

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

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:52 am

white_rabbit wrote:Dennis you are such a dumb fucker.

I have a copy of US magazine from 1981, Joan Collins graces the cover and right there on the cover is a lead for an article, "Mysterious cancer killing gay men." It was called GRID back then. Do you expect Chuck to refer to it as GRID or "gay cancer" if they are refering to AIDS pre-82-83?

And Chuck brought up a legitimate point in that it was the Gay Community that organized ASO's and funded it out of gay pockets and advocated safer sex long before the government/NIH/CDC advocated condom, education or research. Thanks to Ronnie in hell. It was not until 1986 when C Everrett Koop urged education that a government official advocated condom use to stem the spread of AIDS.
I am no dumb fucker, I have always practiced safe sex. I am a smart fucker.

So was it 1985, 86 or 87 now that the Reagan Administration acknowledged AIDS? Either way for a disease that first made a real but still very small appearance in 1980 and that was not named until 1982, too have it mentioned and acted upon within 3 years is pretty damn fast for the scientific community and the government.

Ronald Reagan's greatness far exceeds any single issue, positive or negative. He gave America back its pride, and that is what is being celebrated this week. He was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and has recieved the honors that befit that position.

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

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:02 pm

Dennis wrote:I am no dumb fucker, I have always practiced safe sex.



No you is.

I guess masturbation is considered safe sex. I suppose there maybe another dumb fucker out there who would actually fuck you.

By the way nearly 13,000 deaths by 1985. Most where otherwise healthy young men in their 20's and 30's who just happen to be gay. If it was introduced into the straight community, much like it was in Africa, and spread only in the straight community how many deaths of otherwise healthy young men and women in their 20's and 30's do you think it would have taken for your hero to make it a priority? Here's a hint, you dumb fucker, it would be a lot less than 13,000.
Last edited by white_rabbit on Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10132
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:02 pm

Dennis wrote: So was it 1985, 86 or 87 now that the Reagan Administration acknowledged AIDS?

I already answered that question. Check the time-line I posted.

Dennis wrote: Either way for a disease that first made a real but still very small appearance in 1980 and that was not named until 1982, too have it mentioned and acted upon within 3 years is pretty damn fast for the scientific community and the government.

No, it isn't.
Even giving Reagan the benefit of the doubt and saying he began to "deal" with AIDS as early as 1985, the death toll was already over 12,000 (and that's known, reported cases - the actual figure is surely higher. If you admit that Reagan didn't really begin to tackle the issue until 1987, the death toll was nearly 25,000.)
There have been nowhere near as many deaths in the U.S. from SARS or Mad Cow or West Nile or a host of other diseases about which the government actively distirbutes information to the public and actually take steps to prevent or minimize exposure.

You go on to say that Reagan's "greatness far exceeds any single issue", which (if you agree that Reagan was great) is obviously true. So why harp on this issue, where his "greatness" is not on display at all? I grant that Reagan restored respect to the Presidency, so why won't you grant that he didn't care about AIDS?

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

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:05 pm

Insiders say Ronald Reagan's AIDS public service announcement amounts to an apology for his neglect of the epidemic while in the White House. The announcement was aired last Monday for the benefit of the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Reagan said, "We can all grow and learn in our lives and I've learned all kinds of people can get AIDS, even children." The former president says you can't get AIDS from hugging someone and asks for compassion for people with AIDS....


He knew he did wrong and was making amends to save his soul from hellfire.

http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1990/ad900215.html
Last edited by white_rabbit on Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:09 pm, 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 12:06 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:So, Chuck's memory is a little bit fuzzy... so what?
His point is that you claim nobody noticed or cared about AIDS until Rock Hudson died and that is patently untrue. I remember when Rock died and I remember thinking how pathetic it was that only when a celebrity kicked it did it become a priority for anybody. But AIDS had been around for years already at that point and those of us paying attention were already aware (and recall, I was not yet a teenager!)

Here's a handy time-line to keep you all from making minor factual errors again:
http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/default.asp

Although it wouldn't be called AIDS until late 1982, the CDC began reporting on the disease in June of 1981. Reagan's first mention of the disease is not until Sep. 1985, and it is only in response to a direct question (he claimed that he'd been working to prevent AIDS for 4 years, but Congress disagreed with that assessment - see article below.) Claiming that Reagan took a stand "three years after the disease was discovered" and that this is "pretty fast" is a pathetic attempt at spin. How long did it take for SARS to make it onto the White House's agenda? Or Mad Cow? Not three years from the first reported case, that's for damn sure.
Anyway, Reagan mentioned AIDS, because it was impossible to get around by then, but he didn't actually confront and discuss the disease until 1987 (contrary to his claims otherwise.)
I mean, here are copies of a couple of articles that demonstrate Reagan's lack of concern prior to that time:


http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1985/ap850902.html
Even though he labels AIDS research a top administration priority, President Reagan has only spoken out once about the deadly disease, and then only when prompted by reporters, says Rep. Gerry E. Studds, the only acknowledged homosexual in Congress.
"... The president said last night it is one of the top priorities of the last four years," the Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview Wednesday. "Under those circumstances, it is more than a little difficult to imagine why he has never mentioned it once before in public."
...Reagan, responding to reporters' questions, said more than $500 million had been spent to try to find ways of combatting AIDS...But Studds said Reagan's requests to Congress for fiscal years 1982 through 1986 were far less than that amount, and the money was appropriated only because Congress went beyond administration requests.


This one demonstrates "The Great Communicator"'s refusal to tell the facts:
http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1985/lt850910.html

Dennis, you will win no arguments pretending that Reagan gave a shit about this disease... oh wait, you don't have any sympathy for people with this disease either. After all, they made a choice. So, presumably, you have no sympathy for victims of car crashes (after all, they chose to drive a car, right?) or for our soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan (after all, there's no draft, they chose to join the military.) Since when is sympathy and empathy reserved only for those who choose the safest path through life?
How many people gave a two cents about AIDS before the mid-80's out side the gay community? Very very few folks. Until Rock Hudson died, and Ryan White was harrased, very few who were outside the gay community or hemophyliac families paid much attention to it at all, because overall it was a centralized disease that even in the communities that it effected only effected a minority of the community. Simply put it was not as widespread as the coverage and gay activist community suggested. For the number of folks effected it has gathered a much larger share of research dollars compared to cancer and genetic diseases.

To compare those with AIDS in the early 80's who primarily got the disease from a hedonistic lifestyle of sex and drugs, to those servicemen who have died in the service of thier country is just plain sick.

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

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:14 pm

Dennis wrote:]How many people gave a two cents about AIDS before the mid-80's out side the gay community? Very very few folks. .


Unless you have proof to back up your assertions either shut up or speak only for yourself.

A lot of people outside of the gay community were concerned about AIDS in the early and mid-eighties. Just because you were surrounded by like-minded gay haters doesn't mean the rest of the country was thinking the same as you and your ilk. But I betcha had some really funny AIDS and fag jokes, didn't ya Dennis?

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

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:15 pm

white_rabbit wrote:
Dennis wrote:I am no dumb fucker, I have always practiced safe sex.



No you is.

I guess masturbation is considered safe sex. I suppose there maybe another dumb fucker out there who would actually fuck you.

By the way nearly 13,000 deaths by 1985. Most where otherwise healthy young men in their 20's and 30's who just happen to be gay. If it was introduced into the straight community, much like it was in Africa, and spread only in the straight community how many deaths of otherwise healthy young men and women in their 20's and 30's do you think it would have taken for your hero to make it a priority? Here's a hint, you dumb fucker, it would be a lot less than 13,000.
So why not the emphisis on skin cancer that kills many more the 13000 A YEAR in the straight community and has been doing so for over a hundred years? AIDS gets a disporportionate amount of research dollars because the Gay community makes it a minority political issue, it is not based on the real threat.

The gay community needs to get the chip off their shoulder. AIDS was spread so fast due to the hedonistic ways of the gay community in the late 70's and early 80's. Multiple partners for pure sexual gratification, not loveing commited couples. Something truely deadly seeped into that lifestyle and folks took to long to take care of it with in their own community. If the gay community would have cleaned up the bath houses and their lifestyle sooner, most of those 13000 young men would have been saved. But somehow it is Ronald Reagan's fault for not putting an end to something that only effected .0052% of the US population?

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

Postby Dennis » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:19 pm

white_rabbit wrote:
Dennis wrote:]How many people gave a two cents about AIDS before the mid-80's out side the gay community? Very very few folks. .


Unless you have proof to back up your assertions either shut up or speak only for yourself.

A lot of people outside of the gay community were concerned about AIDS in the early and mid-eighties. Just because you were surrounded by like-minded gay haters doesn't mean the rest of the country was thinking the same as you and your ilk. But I betcha had some really funny AIDS and fag jokes, didn't ya Dennis?
No I actually did not. Why do you think that I am a gay hater? I don't harass anyone souly on the grounds of their sexuality. I straight tramp is as bad as a gay tramp. If you would try to assimulate rather then trying so hard to challange everyone, you might find folks are more accepting of your differences then you realize.
DC has a pretty strong gay community, I have been around it my whole life. The gays that make the most strides for that community have been those that went about there business as humans rather then as gay men.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests