• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nancy's Legacy, Just Say No to AIDS

D.A.R.E. had nothing to do with AIDS and Just Say No was about drug policy not about sex policy.
Combining the two is faux criminalization in the attempt to push agenda and drag a dead woman through the mud for...reasons.
Partisan hatred has really grown ugly in modern times.

Edit: Also. An interesting article on the entire thing:
Reagan and AIDS: Correcting the Record
 
Last edited:
Ntharotep said:
D.A.R.E. had nothing to do with AIDS and Just Say No was about drug policy not about sex policy.
Combining the two is faux criminalization in the attempt to push agenda and drag a dead woman through the mud for...reasons.
Click to expand...

The critique is that the Reagans refused to address AIDS in any meaningful way for years. It's a well-deserved criticism.
 
I would like to make a couple of points not to construed as excuses for anyone

In the early 80s the populace knew little about aids and they were indifferent towards it. As they became aware of it they ignorantly shrugged it off as a gay disease when in fact heterosexuals were dieing of the disease also but that was under reported.

Govt doesnt move on anything until enough people start raging about it. There just wasnt enough clamor to spank govt into action
 
calamity said:
I'd like to...but, the White House and the CDC should have been more aggressive in its response instead of going, "Eeow! Gays and disease. Yuck."
Click to expand...

They didn't. That's a false story perpetuated by the smear machine to attack the Reagan legacy and you are a peddler of their lies. Nancy Reagan was a classy, smart and gracious first lady. Your thread and that "Teenvogue" article are shameful.
 
calamity said:
The critique is that the Reagans refused to address AIDS in any meaningful way for years. It's a well-deserved criticism.
Click to expand...

For the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around.


As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.

Read more: Ronald Reagan and AIDS: Correcting the Record | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Click to expand...

You really shouldn't rely on miniseries and activist to tell you history.
 
Renae said:
You really shouldn't rely on miniseries and activist to tell you history.
Click to expand...

1985?

From the link cited above:
The first news reports about AIDS surfaced in 1981 — just months into the Reagan presidency — and within a few years, thousands of gay men had died of the disease. Yet Reagan didn't make an early push to fund expanded medical research and didn't make his first public comments about AIDS until 1987, at which time more than 20,000 Americans had died of its complications.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Activists say Nancy Reagan should have pushed harder on AIDS
Click to expand...

For the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around.


As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.

Read more: Ronald Reagan and AIDS: Correcting the Record | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Click to expand...

Again, don't rely on activist to tell you what to think.
 
Renae said:
I know you think Government is the answer to all of life's little problems.... but it's not.
Click to expand...

You sure have an odd take on things for someone who is supposedly LGBT. So, ignoring AIDS is just another big plus for small government? :roll:
 
Renae said:
Again, don't rely on activist to tell you what to think.
Click to expand...

:roll:

In May [1983], the U.S. Congress passes the first bill that includes funding specifically targeted for AIDS research and treatment—$12 million for agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


On December 6, a congressional subcommittee releases The Federal Response to AIDS, a report criticizing the U.S. Government for failure to invest sufficient funding in AIDS surveillance and research.

https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
You sure have an odd take on things for someone who is supposedly LGBT. So, ignoring AIDS is just another big plus for small government? :roll:
Click to expand...

As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.
Click to expand...

I lived through the whole aids crisis Calamity. The Reagan's weren't anti-gay, the AIDS crisis was going to go the way it did REGARDLESS OF WHAT the White House did mostly due to ignorance of the disease and a lack of public understanding. Aids was a "Gay disease" because M2M sex happens to be a great way to transmit the disease, couple that with a very hedonistic culture and multiple partners a year high risk behavior prevalent in the gay community and boom, an epidemic. What difference would Ronald Reagan coming out and saying "Hey I think this Aids thing is bad, we should do more" have done? They doubled funding for fighting the disease every year starting in 1982.

The AIDS epidemic of the 80's was terrible, but to try and lay that at the feet of the Reagans is intellectually dishonest to the core.
 
calamity said:
I'd like to...but, the White House and the CDC should have been more aggressive in its response instead of going, "Eeow! Gays and disease. Yuck."
Click to expand...
It was more than that. Politicians didn't want to spend the money so doctors could find a cure. Public awareness came from other countries. Some politicians and the Reagan administration did want to spend the money for a 'star wars' missile defense system in the sky. The Reagan administration sold American arms to Iran and gave the money to the Contras.
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
I lived through the whole aids crisis Calamity. The Reagan's weren't anti-gay, the AIDS crisis was going to go the way it did REGARDLESS OF WHAT the White House did mostly due to ignorance of the disease and a lack of public understanding. Aids was a "Gay disease" because M2M sex happens to be a great way to transmit the disease, couple that with a very hedonistic culture and multiple partners a year high risk behavior prevalent in the gay community and boom, an epidemic. What difference would Ronald Reagan coming out and saying "Hey I think this Aids thing is bad, we should do more" have done? They doubled funding for fighting the disease every year starting in 1982.

The AIDS epidemic of the 80's was terrible, but to try and lay that at the feet of the Reagans is intellectually dishonest to the core.
Click to expand...

When was it when the doctors and scientists really knew anything about the disease?

I wouldn't expect the President to say anything until he had something to say.
 
Mason66 said:
When was it when the doctors and scientists really knew anything about the disease?

I wouldn't expect the President to say anything until he had something to say.
Click to expand...

Yes but that arguement doesnt help the blame the crisis on conservatives, so we can't have that.
 
calamity said:
So, while the Right drools over the faux accomplishments of the recently deceased former first lady, we may want to take an honest look at her true legacy. And, it's not pretty.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say with this thread that the gay community didn't know about AIDS because the President didn't make a speech about it?

I can assure you they did know about it, very well.
 
Mason66 said:
Are you trying to say with this thread that the gay community didn't know about AIDS because the President didn't make a speech about it?

I can assure you they did know about it, very well.
Click to expand...

No. That is not what I am saying.
 
calamity said:
No. That is not what I am saying.
Click to expand...

What difference do you think it would have made if Nancy Reagan switched her focus from drugs to AIDS?

Also do you have a problem with Michelle Obama not taking on any diseases we currently have going on today? If so what should she be doing?
 
Mason66 said:
What difference do you think it would have made if Nancy Reagan switched her focus from drugs to AIDS?

Also do you have a problem with Michelle Obama not taking on any diseases we currently have going on today? If so what should she be doing?
Click to expand...


I don't recall Barak or Michelle giving speeches about the ZIKA virus, do you? Are we in twenty years going to look back at their failure and blame them for the spread too?
 
Renae said:
I don't recall Barak or Michelle giving speeches about the ZIKA virus, do you? Are we in twenty years going to look back at their failure and blame them for the spread too?
Click to expand...

I don't Michelle doing anything other than her chosen cause. Why would she change direction at this point. I wouldn't expect her to.

I guess Republicans have to be Super Human. They need to see the future and know things that are not yet known.
 
Renae said:
They didn't. That's a false story perpetuated by the smear machine to attack the Reagan legacy and you are a peddler of their lies. Nancy Reagan was a classy, smart and gracious first lady. Your thread and that "Teenvogue" article are shameful.
Click to expand...
I guess Cal missed it the first time I linked it...

calamity said:
You sure have an odd take on things for someone who is supposedly LGBT. So, ignoring AIDS is just another big plus for small government? :roll:
Click to expand...
It wasn't "ignoring" AIDS. It was doing what they could with the education on AIDS at the time, what advisors were pushing for (for honest and probably not so honest reasons) and with limited medical knowledge on the disease.
It is VERY easy to judge what someone should have done 30 or more years ago with the medical knowledge of today.
You could accuse the Reagans of not getting closely enough involved until their friend, Rock Hudson contracted the disease but they were hardly "ignoring" it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom