RRC Archives

Pigsteak

I hear you. I don´t think that Carter is some triumph of a president.

Still, I think Reagan gets a big pass for lots of dirty, dirty stuff.

Note how most of the Reagan cheerleaders are Conservative historians and partisan hacks that are trying to establish his legacy for current policy agendas (i.e. tax cuts for the rich) and were trying to help GW ride into office on the nostalgia for the woebegone days of the cold war when the enemies were national (not transnational) the solution helped prop up the Boeing and Lockheed Martin and the President could innocently proclaim "I don´t remember" to dodge any kind of accountablity.

In the end, GW and Reagan are pretty similar:

Totally out of touch with the experienes of everyday working americans.

Manipulated by foreign policy ideologues with deep connections to the industrio-military complex.


Carter had some vision, but no ability to lead. I will give you that.

Just because the common sense version of history tells us Reagan was a good president doesn´t mean its true. The history is constructed by individuals and influenced by ideology and agendas.

Just like people posting online .. .. oops.

climbboy wrote: the homosexual aids myth (how many deaths because of this lie . . .?).

Whats the homosexual aids myth?

Carter is my favorite president out of ALL US presidents. FDR is a close second.

Much of what this congress has tried to accomplish has run into one big stupid barely literate problem. W and his veto. He vetoed a budget that called for a 10% increase in spending on social programs while he wants to increase defense spending by 40%. Sounds like a great plan. He wants a blank check to pay for wars that, to put it nicely, are less than popular. his domestic plan is everything will be alright if we just love jesus so why spend any of the tax payers money on anything that will actually benefit the tax payer

caribe wrote:Carter is my favorite president out of ALL US presidents. FDR is a close second.

Now that doesn't surprise me. But I'm surprised you'd say it in public.

Shamis:

Reagan (amongst others) was pretty adamant in assuring the american people that AIDS was merely a disease that affected homosexuals. As a result, if heteros thought they were in the clear and engaged in unsafe sex, well, they, too, ran a high risk of infection.

Perhaps a bit of hypebole, but I don´t think so. He really helped keep AIDS designated as a "gay" disease and you can imagine what this did for the dollars flowing towards research on vaccines and other means of treatment.


Here´s more info from democracy now (amy goodman rocks!)

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/i ... agan_years


Granted its a lefty perspective, but that don´t mean it ain´t got some truth in it and I am lefty pinko commie, so what else do you expect.

Oh, and Caribe, my favorite presidents are . . . in the following order:

James Garfield and
Benjamin Harrison
Millard Filmore
James Polk

climbboy wrote:Reagan (amongst others) was pretty adamant in assuring the american people that AIDS was merely a disease that affected homosexuals. As a result, if heteros thought they were in the clear and engaged in unsafe sex, well, they, too, ran a high risk of infection.

Yeah, I figured as much. My question is: how many documented cases of a heterosexual male getting HIV from straight heterosexual sex are there?

As far as I can tell straight men who don't use needles and don't put in in the pooper don't get HIV, and I'm inclined to believe that it has been used as a scare tactic by conservative nazi's to prevent healthy young hetero's from getting it on.

So your saying aids can only be transmitted through needles and anal? I guess you do really grasp the Reagan perspective.

mcrib wrote:So your saying aids can only be transmitted through needles and anal? I guess you do really grasp the Reagan perspective.

No. but I'm still interested to see some numbers on how many males have gotten it from straight hetero sex. I'm pretty sure the numbers are in the double digits.