Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN's Cooper and Gupta Bemoan Reagan's Indifference to AIDS(CNN's INDIFFERENCE to the FACTS)
MRC ^ | Thursday June 10, 2004 | BrentBaker

Posted on 06/10/2004 5:37:15 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay

On Tuesday night CNN devoted a segment of Anderson Cooper 360 to how, as CNN's Dr, Sanjay Gupta put it, throughout his presidency "many would accuse President Reagan of ignoring AIDS," as if Reagan talking about it would have done more to prevent it than those in the homosexual community modifying their unsafe sex practices. Leading into a Reagan clip from 1987, Gupta complained that "the first time President Reagan would utter the word AIDS in public would be well into his second term, six years after the virus was discovered." In fact, Reagan talked about AIDS in 1985 and cited it repeatedly in his 1986 State of the Union address. Gupta relayed how one "AIDS activist" believes "the administration avoided AIDS all those years because of homophobia."

Interviewing Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, Cooper pointed out how "the San Francisco Chronicle said that Ronald Reagan was guilty, and I quote, of a 'shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.'" When Fauci wasn't sufficiently anti-Reagan, Cooper reminded him: "The criticism is that earlier on in 1981 or '82, they had been more vocal they might have made a difference. I think part of the anger, too, is that Reagan's communication director, Pat Buchanan, you know, was quoted as saying in print that AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals."

Unmentioned by CNN, how, as Deroy Murdock conveyed on National Review Online: "In a Congressional Research Service study titled 'AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999,' author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed."

For Murdock's piece, which quotes Reagan's comments about AIDS in 1985 and 1986, as well as how Patti Davis denied her father was any kind of homophobe: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/murdock200406081045.asp

(Cooper's segment on Reagan and AIDS aired the same night, MRC analyst Ken Shepherd noticed, that he devoted a story to the suddenly wise Nancy Reagan for opposing President Bush on stem cell research. He introduced that story: "Well, as President Bush remembers Ronald Reagan, he is also reminding America of his admiration of the Republican icon and of course, Reagan's wife Nancy, as well. But there is one sticky subject where the president and the wife of the former president part company, stem cell research. It is an anathema to many conservatives, but to a woman who just lost her beloved husband to Alzheimer's, it is a topic that transcends 'Raw Politics.'")

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaresearch.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aids; cnn; liberallies; reagan; riskybehavior
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
So, AIDS policy aside, was Ronald Reagan a homophobe? Here again, those who know him best just say, "No."

"According to the screenplay...my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn't gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate," wrote Ronald and Nancy Reagan's daughter,Patti Davis, on Time magazine's website. "Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have."

In fact, she recalls "the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way" in which her dad discussed the topic of homosexuality with her when she was age eight or nine.

"My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, "That looks weird."... All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn't really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn't reserved just for men and women."

Fact: Reagan publicly demonstrated this outlook when he opposed Proposition 6, a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality, even outside of schools. Reagan used both a September 24, 1978, statement and a syndicated newspaper column to campaign against the initiative.

Fact:Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.

Table 5 of Johnson's report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan's watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency chart

Charges that Showtime recently depicted in the controversial TV film "The Reagans". Nothing more than left-wing lies about an American legend.

Source:Anti-Gay Gipper A lie about Reagan

1 posted on 06/10/2004 5:37:18 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Gupta complained that "the first time President Reagan would utter the word AIDS in public would be well into his second term, six years after the virus was discovered."

The first time President Clinton would utter the name "Juanita Broaddrick" in public was well into his second term, as I recall...

2 posted on 06/10/2004 5:39:28 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Gupta was probably dedicated to Khali as a child.


3 posted on 06/10/2004 5:48:03 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

That (Reagan didn't stop Aids) whine was the same one most of the CSPAN negative callers use.

The Libs found out few know anything about Iran Contra, so that flopped as mud to sling.

The only other issue they could seem to find to sling some mud at President Reagan was that he didn't stop Aids.

I'd bet most 'callers' couldn't even carry on a real discussion about how many $$$ Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 provided, etc., because it is just the talking point for them to spew if they got on air.


4 posted on 06/10/2004 5:49:57 PM PDT by TomGuy (Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Sorry, but NO politician is in any way responsible for AIDS. Not Reagan, not Bush, not Clinton, not nobody.

Why should ANYBODY care about AIDS more than those who are too self-indulgent to STOP the behavior that transmits it?

They're lambasting Reagan on AIDS because he didn't accept/embrace the gay agenda. Period.

5 posted on 06/10/2004 5:51:28 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Gun control = hitting your target)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I remember when AIDs first broke the public conciousness,
we were told over and over, it was a civil rights issue
NOT a health emergency.

Now they're sniveling.


6 posted on 06/10/2004 5:51:47 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Republicans wanted to curtail the actvities which spread AIDS; liberals opposed any action to curtail such activities. So the Republicans are at fault for the fact that the disease was spread by people participating in such activities?


7 posted on 06/10/2004 5:52:38 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Sorry, but NO politician is in any way responsible for AIDS. Not Reagan, not Bush, not Clinton, not nobody.

What about those who prevented any action to clamp down on the bathhouses where the disease was spread?

8 posted on 06/10/2004 5:53:53 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: supercat

AIDs was identified in the late 70's. Wouldn't that really make it Carter's fault?


9 posted on 06/10/2004 5:57:18 PM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: supercat
If the bathhouses didn't exist they'd go to each other's apartments to boink each other. AIDS will cease when the participants stop their behavior.

It amazes me that it's become virtually a capital crime to even suggest that people behave themselves. We are a nation of toddlers who want what we want NOW with no restrictions or responsibilities, only rights.

10 posted on 06/10/2004 5:58:15 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Gun control = hitting your target)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Good thing President Clinton was elected. He eradicated AIDS in America. Didn't he?

<<<< crickets >>>>

11 posted on 06/10/2004 5:58:33 PM PDT by freebilly (Vote Kerry-- 1 Billion Muslims Can't Be Wrong....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
True! And I believe that Reagan did not think it was in his realm of issues to be concerned with....we have agencies in government to deal with diseases and to pass out money for those diseases.

Every president after Reagan has talked about AIDS and it has not made the problem a faint memory.....so what gives???????????

12 posted on 06/10/2004 5:58:42 PM PDT by BossLady (What do your choices cost you????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
That (Reagan didn't stop Aids) whine was the same one most of the CSPAN negative callers use.

And here we are, some 20+ years later, and there still isn't a cure for AIDS, despite 8 wondrous years of Bill Clinton, despite billions of dollars spent by many countries to the detriment of research into the cure of other less "fashionable" diseases.

They do have a point, however; Reagan could have stopped AIDS in America by quarantining carriers early and shutting down businesses that promoted the spread of the disease, but we all know how that would have gone over. In the end, everyone knew that (a) the odds of getting AIDS if you lead a clean life were extremely small, and (b) if those that were at risk of getting AIDS wouldn't do anything to help themselves then there really wasn't a moral obligation to help them.

13 posted on 06/10/2004 6:01:13 PM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jaded

AIDS virus was not identified until 1982.


14 posted on 06/10/2004 6:03:52 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Did you hear the CSPAN caller who was indignant because Clinton and Carter were not 'invited" to Reagan's services? Oh yes, she was sure it was true in spite of the newsreader telling her they just weren't invited to speak! She said her friend had called her and she had heard that too!

Rush brought up the fact that VP Cheney was told not to attend Wellstone's "memorial rally" Wonder if that woman was indignant about that too? NO!!!
15 posted on 06/10/2004 6:05:02 PM PDT by ladyinred (RIP Governor/President Reagan, ride peacefully into that sunset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
If the bathhouses didn't exist they'd go to each other's apartments to boink each other. AIDS will cease when the participants stop their behavior.

Having never participated in that 'scene' I can only conjecture, but something tells me that the promiscuity rates among bathhouse patrons were probably higher than among those who went home for their 'relationships'.

I also have a feeling that there were and are many 'homosexual activists' who wanted and still want AIDS to spread so they can portray homosexuals as 'victims'.

16 posted on 06/10/2004 6:05:52 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Then, later, they said there was a privacy issue, so they couldn't be forced to reveal to anybody whether they had AIDS or not.

The homosexual lobby has fought tooth and nail every step of the way for the right to spread AIDS unfettered. They didn't really want anybody stopping it; they only wanted their treatment paid for with OPM.

17 posted on 06/10/2004 6:12:37 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

I remember reading about it as the 'gay plague' in the early 80's when I had a subscription to Rolling Stone. A friend's husband who was a hemophiliac contracted it either from his meds or a blood transfusion in 83 or 84.

It still doesn't make it Reagan's fault, he wasn't the one spreading it and there's still not a cure.


18 posted on 06/10/2004 6:15:12 PM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
caller who was indignant because Clinton and Carter were not 'invited" to Reagan's services?

Nancy Reagan chooses who will speak. This is not a political rally like Wellstone's service.

The rumor was also that Clinton was pissed off as this deflected interest of his book coming out. Again not verified at this time..only rumor.

19 posted on 06/10/2004 6:16:04 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: randog
They do have a point, however; Reagan could have stopped AIDS in America by quarantining carriers early and shutting down businesses that promoted the spread of the disease, but we all know how that would have gone over. In the end, everyone knew that (a) the odds of getting AIDS if you lead a clean life were extremely small, and (b) if those that were at risk of getting AIDS wouldn't do anything to help themselves then there really wasn't a moral obligation to help them.

One rather interesting facet of liberalism is that it imparts nobility to victimhood. If someone is harmed by something, one should be entitled to benefit from it; one should not try to mitigate harm, because reducing the harm one suffers would reduce the amount of 'relief' to which one was entitled.

The notion that it is better to have problems and blame someone else for them, than not to have the problems in the first place, seems bizarre, but it seems to have infected a lot of people in a lot of ways. I don't know what the best way to counter this infectious notion, but perhaps forcing it into the open will help.

20 posted on 06/10/2004 6:16:38 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Having never participated in that 'scene' I can only conjecture, but something tells me that the promiscuity rates among bathhouse patrons were probably higher than among those who went home for their 'relationships'.

Probably, but it still comes down to a disease that is spread not by airborne germs, not by water, not by tainted food but by personal behavior.

I also have a feeling that there were and are many 'homosexual activists' who wanted and still want AIDS to spread so they can portray homosexuals as 'victims'.

Completely agree with you here. Why would AIDS activists want AIDS to go away? Look at the meal ticket they've been given. Along the same lines why would social workers or welfare case workers want their 'clients' to actually become self-sufficient and/or mentally stable? Their job would disappear overnight. Victims produce a lot of jobs for others.

I think we're on the same page, supercat.

21 posted on 06/10/2004 6:17:02 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Gun control = hitting your target)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Wasn't it called G.R.I.D. for the first few years (until political correctness took over?)


22 posted on 06/10/2004 6:21:33 PM PDT by spodefly (This post meets the minimum daily requirements for cynicism and irony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Jeez, I just had this conversation with a leftie student today who was screeching on about how AIDS was Reagans fault, and that made him an evil person.

Student: Reagan didn't take AIDS seriously. Me: Would the opinion of one man have made the disease dissapear? Student: No, but he could have supported research to stop the disease. Me: We have spent over 15 BILLION dollars [ed: look it up yourself, NIH numbers) of taxpayer money on AIDS research and prevention programs since 1985, and even with all of our new technologies like electron microsocopes and gene sequencers, we still can't stop it and are still debating exactly how it works. What difference would a few million in extra funding have made when 15 billion couldn't do it? Student: He could have put the money into prevention programs to keep it from spreading. Me: AIDS was primarily a homosexual disease in 1983, but very few homosexuals really believed that AIDS was transmitted by sex. Even those that believed AIDS was caused by sex refused to change their ways or wear condoms, because they were sure that a cure would be found quickly. Student: The government could have educated them about it. Me: I was only a kid at the time, but even I remember all of the press discussions about homosexual sex causing AIDS, a homosexual would have had to live in a cave to not know. But most refused to change their behavior. Student: The government should have told them that a cure would take a while. Me: The actual virus wasn't even identified until '88 or '89, so nobody knew what they were fighting. How were they supposed to know how long it would take to cure it? The doctors at the time were pretty optomistic and thought they'd have a cure in a year or two. NOBODY suspected back then that we'd still have this disease 20 years later. How exactly was Reagan supposed to predict that? Student: Maybe they couldn't have predicted it, but they could have stopped it. Me: How, by shutting down the gaybars? By forcibly testing "at risk" people and interning infected people? Would you have supported that? Student: Of course not, that's fascist! Me: So if you were Reagan, what would you have done differently? Student: <blank stare for about 30 seconds> Student: You right wingers are all alike. You have to worship your God Ronnie and think he walked on water. He was evil and killed a lot of innocent people because he didn't care about AIDS!

And with that, she stormed out of my programming class. She never did answer my question either :-)

I'm firmly convinced that lefties exist only because people don't think. Like many subjects, this libbie had no clue how to react when her communist mantra fount itself in the cold glare of the light of truth.
23 posted on 06/10/2004 6:25:27 PM PDT by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

"The former British and Canadian leaders were joining Bush and his father Friday in eulogizing Reagan to close the curtain on the capital's elaborate state funeral – Washington's last goodbye before Reagan's sunset burial on the grounds of his presidential library outside Los Angeles. Besides the first President Bush, the other living former presidents were expected, too: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton." - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040610-1737-ronaldreagan.html


24 posted on 06/10/2004 6:28:39 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Interviewing Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, Cooper pointed out how "the San Francisco Chronicle said that Ronald Reagan was guilty, and I quote, of a 'shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.'"

Now, let me get this straight. It's the responsibility of the POTUS to , let's say, make a public service commercal reminding a homosexual man to be sure to "wrap that rascal" before having anal intercourse with another man???

Sorry, but perpetual victimhood is getting old, real old.

25 posted on 06/10/2004 6:32:43 PM PDT by KosmicKitty (Well... There you go again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat

"Republicans wanted to curtail the actvities which spread AIDS; liberals opposed any action to curtail such activities. So the Republicans are at fault for the fact that the disease was spread by people participating in such activities?"

Bingo, you got it.


26 posted on 06/10/2004 6:35:58 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Lets not confuse CNN with the facts.


27 posted on 06/10/2004 6:36:48 PM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaded

The first AIDS cases were reported in the June 5, 1981 weekly morbidity and mortality report of the CDC.


28 posted on 06/10/2004 6:37:40 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

So about half the audience numbers watching FOX actually might have seen this so-predictable CNN hatchet job. And everyday fewer and fewer will watch.

I channel sufered yesterday and crossed CNN to hear O'l Judy Woodruffd somehow trash both Bush and Regan in the same sentence no less. She must have stayed up have the night trying to get that sentence constructed.

Their agenda is sooo obvious.


29 posted on 06/10/2004 6:47:27 PM PDT by rod1 (On the front line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
"You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole," says Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World. "There were no anti-virals back then. The first anti-viral was AZT which came along in 1987, and that was for AIDS." As an example of how blindly scientists and policymakers flew as the virus took wing, Fumento recalls that "in 1984, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler predicted that there would be an AIDS vaccine by 1986. There is no AIDS vaccine to date."

..Pass her this note next time you see her. Source posted above.

30 posted on 06/10/2004 6:48:23 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Good point.


31 posted on 06/10/2004 6:52:10 PM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

This thread goes on my links page. Great information!


32 posted on 06/10/2004 6:52:45 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Pres. Reagan was greeted at the Pearly Gates by his old college buddy, Moses.:-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

And they don't want to address the fight that these young gay men put up to prevent the bathhouses in SF from being closed or the reporting of this nasty STD to public health...Hell why doesn't any one of these guys admit that it is their own behaviour that is killing them


33 posted on 06/10/2004 6:54:07 PM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion

LOL! I like this post.


34 posted on 06/10/2004 7:00:17 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Pres. Reagan was greeted at the Pearly Gates by his old college buddy, Moses.:-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
Arthalion: The actual virus wasn't even identified until '88 or '89, so nobody knew what they were fighting.

The virus was identified in April of 1984, three years after the disease was identified (June of 1981). The cause was not clear in 1981-82, but the epidemiology was clear -- it was sexually transmitted.

Arthalion: We have spent over 15 BILLION dollars

The funding for AIDS was relatively small before 1985, several million per year. Public health people were well aware that the situation was ominous -- the case load was small (a few thousand) before 1985, but growing exponentially. There were scientists urgently calling for more funding but for several years they were not heeded.

Reagan apparently wasn't clued in on this issue early on. I heard the historian Haynes Johnson claim on NPR that Reagan didn't know about AIDS until his friend Rock Hudson died of it -- he had to ask his personal physician what AIDS was.

35 posted on 06/10/2004 7:01:06 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rod1; Arthalion
What FRUSTRATES me most is that those like the student (and a voter, I assume) poster Arthalion mentions above..DON'T WANT TO LEARN THE TRUTH..THEY ARE HAPPY TO BELIEVE LIES AFTER YOU SPOON FEED THEM WITH FACTS.

I don't worry as much about a foreign born terrorist attack as much as an assassination attempt by some young misguided media brainwashed liberal thinking Bush-hating extremist!

36 posted on 06/10/2004 7:03:47 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/murdock200406081045.asp

You might want to read this source.

Regards
F_T_D


37 posted on 06/10/2004 7:10:06 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

NPR..laughs..sorry.


38 posted on 06/10/2004 7:10:59 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion

Should we take a guess as to how she's performing in a class that relies on logic? Another question, can not these screeching leftists stay focused long enough to get through even a programming class without erupting into their usual ranting selves?


39 posted on 06/10/2004 7:12:35 PM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
spodefly: Wasn't it called G.R.I.D. for the first few years (until political correctness took over?)

Yes, Gay Related Immune Deficiency. But drug users were getting it, and it was appearing in Haitians. People started to refer to the 4-H club: Homosexuals, Haitians, Hemophiliacs and Heroin users.

Reminds me of the old joke: What's the worst part of getting AIDS? Trying to convince your mother that you're Haitian.

40 posted on 06/10/2004 7:14:25 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Thanks a bunch!! Terrific article.


41 posted on 06/10/2004 7:16:54 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
NPR..laughs..sorry.

True, true. I couldn't decide if Haynes Johnson was full of it or not. His take was, don't blame Reagan, he didn't know about it until Hudson passed away. But Johnson wrote the book "Sleepwalking Through History", which I suppose is not the most positive take on the Reagan years <grin>.

42 posted on 06/10/2004 7:20:01 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
A friend's husband who was a hemophiliac contracted it either from his meds or a blood transfusion in 83 or 84.

Didn't the gays and the ACLU block early screening of the blood supply on "right to privacy" grounds?

43 posted on 06/10/2004 7:21:10 PM PDT by nonliberal (Bush 2004: He is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Homophobe?

What nonsense!

Merv Giffin has been best friends of the Reagans for decades, and will be a pallbearer. It is well-known in Hollywood that he is homosexual.

44 posted on 06/10/2004 7:26:55 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spanns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
The funding for AIDS was relatively small before 1985, several million per year. Public health people were well aware that the situation was ominous -- the case load was small (a few thousand) before 1985, but growing exponentially. There were scientists urgently calling for more funding but for several years they were not heeded.

Gay activists did far more to encourage the spread of disease than any amount of funding could have done to stop it.

45 posted on 06/10/2004 7:32:13 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

The homosexual movement wants America to believe that Reagan, not homosexual sodomy - an unnatural, unsanitary sex act - is responsible for the spread of AIDS. Homosexuals want to have their cake and eat it, too; they want to engage in unnatural, unsanitary sex acts, then plunder the federal treasury when they get infected.


46 posted on 06/10/2004 7:35:48 PM PDT by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth

It is also well known that CNN's Anderson Cooper is gay.


47 posted on 06/10/2004 7:36:27 PM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
NOBODY suspected back then that we'd still have this disease 20 years later

Ahem, I'm sure I wasn't the only doctor that suspected it was a virus, and knew there was no "antibiotic" for viral diseases, and that we didn't even have the basic scientific knowledge to figure out how to kill viruses without killing the host, as viruses are about as close to naked DNA as a "living" thing can get.

Also, many of us even knew that viruses and prions may not really fit the criteria for "life," that they may just be organic chemicals that can replicate and cause infection.

I specifically remember warning people that we would need a once in a century type genius to make the mental breakthrough to even begin to fight the disease. I was very much in favor of controlling it by making it a reportable disease and having the public health department confidentially track down all exposed people, like they have discretely done for decades with TB, venereal diseases, and other communicable diseases.

But the gay community made that illegal, and the millions of deaths and disability extra will always be on the heads of the gay activists would put their politics ahead of the lives and well-being of millions.

48 posted on 06/10/2004 7:45:44 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spanns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom

My husband and I don't live in Hollywood any more, so we are out of touch now.


49 posted on 06/10/2004 7:51:09 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spanns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

Ron jr was doing the PSA's with the banana and condom. How far back was that?


50 posted on 06/10/2004 7:51:48 PM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson