MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Monday, December 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 35.0° F  Overcast with Haze
Collapse Photo Bar

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:31 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.

That's because people like you (read: uncaring jerks) refused to discuss it, you twit! People tried to make it a priority, warning that what we were seeing in 1982 was only the beginning - it would get worse. Nobody paid any attention. The fact that The President of the United States was one of those ignoring the deaths of his constituents only makes this a worse crime! It is the job of the government to protect its civilians, no? Why were they not doing so... oh, right, because those affected were either gay or druggies. They don't have any rights! They don't need protecting! We'll deal with it when it affects straight white folks or, at least white movie stars who happen to be gay...

Dennis wrote: 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.

Uh-huh. Just like SARS or Mad Cow or West Nile...
Why are/were these other, less common and less deadly diseases dealt with quickly by the government while AIDS was allowed to fester for 6 or 7 years before the Feds took action? I mean, you are not helping your case by continually pointing out that nobody was paying attention outside the gay community. That's the freakin' point!!! This disease existed and those who were asking for help were being denied! How does this fact help your case? Ronald freakin' Reagan knew about AIDS at least by the time the CDC issued their 1982 report, yet he didn't publicly acknowledge its existence until 1985. And what action did he take? He cut the proposed budget to combat it.

Dennis wrote: 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.

Oh, please.
You said you have no sympathy for people who die because of their own personal choices. I was merely pointing out how shitty that attitude is when taken to the extreme. Lots of people make unhealthy choices all the time, and that hardly makes them deserving of a slow, painful death. If the government had begun their education program in 1982, perhaps the attitude of the gay community would have been different. Who knows? What is clear is that not enough research was done, not enough information was disseminated and not even the simplest act of compassion - merely mentioning the existence of the disease - could be seen issuing from the Reagan White House. He didn't care, just like you don't care. That's fine, but don't pretend that Reagan didn't know, or that there was nothing to be done.

Dennis wrote: 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?

Far more money is spent on cancer research than AIDS research. You'd know this, if you weren't always getting your facts out of your ass.
Furthermore, skin cancer is not a communicable disease (more below.)

Dennis wrote: 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.

Do you know anything about AIDS or communicable diseases?
HIV is absolutely a "real threat". Like all viruses, it mutates. There has been at least one case of transmission through kissing. If it mutates into something even more deadly, will you give a rat's ass then? It didn't start among gays, y'know, and it's hardly confined to that group throughout the world. Africa is virtually overrun with AIDS, but you probably don't care about those folks, either. To describe what has the potential to become a worldwide epidemic as not a "real threat" is ignorance of the highest order.
Finally, the notion that the Gay community - without any help from the mainstream - has enough clout to make a political issue out of anything is pretty laughable.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby pjbogart » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:21 pm

I guess I should've included Rock Hudson in my poll.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6189
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Previous

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Remember_Me and 0 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar