PDA

View Full Version : Gay activists: How NOT to win friends and influence people



tailfins
06-22-2012, 04:05 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/activists-take-out-frustration-ronald-reagan_647733.html

fj1200
06-22-2012, 04:16 PM
... The man was in the WhiteHouse as AIDS exploded...

Can't argue with that logic. :rolleyes:

Thunderknuckles
06-22-2012, 04:34 PM
"Yeah, fuck Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the WhiteHouse as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care."

Wow.
Not only is this guy a guest in the White House who shows a complete lack of respect for the office, he has the nerve to tell everyone that it's Reagan's fault for gay men dying from AIDS after they voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex?

Hart, next time you have a thought, just let it go.

SassyLady
06-22-2012, 07:20 PM
"Yeah, fuck Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the WhiteHouse as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care."

Wow.
Not only is this guy a guest in the White House who shows a complete lack of respect for the office, he has the nerve to tell everyone that it's Reagan's fault for gay men dying from AIDS after they voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex?

Hart, next time you have a thought, just let it go.




Not taking personal responsibility for anything seems to be the culture of America these days and it runs from top to bottom.

Shadow
06-22-2012, 07:39 PM
“I have friends who work in that building,” Segal explains. “I’m not going to do something that could embarrass them or that could somehow damage a campaign that is so important.

I take it this guy doesn't think his peers that shared the same photo op don't reflect badly on him anyway? :rolleyes:

jimnyc
06-22-2012, 07:51 PM
I'd chime in with my personal thoughts on this one. Then I realized these chumps are homosexual liberals. The President can have a better conversation, and more respectful suitors, when the Special Olympics visits. They should have the ability to identify these guys and hand out the pictures with their names to the top press contacts.

ConHog
06-22-2012, 07:57 PM
What happened to decorum?

SassyLady
06-22-2012, 08:06 PM
What happened to decorum?

Limits free expression.

Toro
06-22-2012, 08:26 PM
These people are idiots.

Kathianne
06-23-2012, 12:18 AM
These people are idiots.

Ignorant idiots:

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/new-myths-reagans-record


New Myths on Reagan's Record Published: 6/16/2004 1:00 AM ET

By the time Ronald Reagan's body arrived on Capitol Hill last week, after 100,000 people paid respects in California and just before another 100,000 people honored him in Washington, the news media were already feeling the urgent need to balance the outpouring of love and nostalgia with a screed or two from Americans who hated Reagan.


Never mind that funerals aren't usually the time for nasty political debates. Never mind that balance is what the media lacked through the Reagan years. The new "balance" didn't even have to be true - just anti-Reagan.
Start with the Reagan AIDS myth. A Los Angeles Times story suggested "many gay men like playwright Jon Bastian still feel Reagan 'did nothing, basically' about the AIDS epidemic that exploded during his eight years as president." Reporters like CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta also lied: "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."


Some AIDS activists in the 1980s never had anything but vicious blame for Reagan. Some still do. The Advocate magazine is touting its forthcoming essay by extremist playwright Larry Kramer titled "Adolf Reagan." It begins: "Our murderer is dead. The man who murdered more gay people than anyone in the entire history of the world, is dead. More people than Hitler even."


The real Reagan record on AIDS is different. AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 - when the media started blaring headlines - from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988. Reagan's secretary of Health and Human Services in1983, Margaret Heckler, declared AIDS her department's "number one priority." While the House of Representatives was Democrat-dominated throughout the 1980s, which Democrats would quickly explain was the source of that skyrocketing AIDS funding, Reagan clearly signed the spending bills that funded the war on AIDS.


It's also wrong that Reagan didn't utter the word "AIDS" until 1987. Any reporter who bothered to check facts would find that Reagan discussed AIDS funding in a 1985 press conference, just for starters. But let's turn that around on the rest of Washington. Does that mean no reporter asked Reagan about AIDS in the 1984 presidential debates? And that every interview President Reagan granted to a national or local media outlet failed to solicit Reagan's opinions on AIDS until 1985? Using this phony-baloney spin line - that federal policy hinges exclusively on the presidential bully pulpit - is an exercise in liberal hyperbole over hard data. ...

SassyLady
06-23-2012, 01:58 AM
And we wonder why children are abusing little old ladies on school buses......take a look at the example these adults are setting.

Nell's Room
06-23-2012, 02:14 AM
Wasn't around when Reagan was President, but it sounds like he actually tried to do something to fix the situation. Its not like he ignored it.

Kathianne
06-23-2012, 02:24 AM
Wasn't around when Reagan was President, but it sounds like he actually tried to do something to fix the situation. Its not like he ignored it.

Ya think? However your compatriots are useful tools, buying into the blather sold to them.

taft2012
06-23-2012, 07:46 AM
Can't argue with that logic. :rolleyes:

I remember those days well.

"He (Reagan) won't say the word 'AIDS'! He's covering it up! He hates gays! People are dying! Ohhhhhhh, wail, agony, gnashing of teeth!"

So then Reagan comes out and addresses the AIDS issue.

"He's trying to create an anti-gay hysteria! He hates gays! People are dying and he's turning the country against us! Ohhhhhh, wail, agony, gnashing of teeth!"

Jeepers,they really can be like a bunch of women.

Voted4Reagan
06-23-2012, 08:50 AM
when AIDS broke in the NYC Area back in the 1980's, NOBODY anywhere knew what it was... The original assessment was that it was a GAY CANCER. It took years to develop the protocols and the drugs we now have that have managed to extend the lifespan of those afflicted by DECADES.

So don't blame Reagan for people dying from AIDS.. We have all known the inherent risks of unprotected sex for hundreds of years.

It's the fault of the individual for not taking precautions... plain and simple. It has no basis in weather you are straight or Gay.

If all of those people had used a condom they wouldnt have died.... or a majority wouldnt have...

It boils down to individual choices... and many people made the wrong one... Reagan just started the ball rolling on finding a cure or effective treatments.

SassyLady
06-23-2012, 08:23 PM
I remember those days well.

"He (Reagan) won't say the word 'AIDS'! He's covering it up! He hates gays! People are dying! Ohhhhhhh, wail, agony, gnashing of teeth!"

So then Reagan comes out and addresses the AIDS issue.

"He's trying to create an anti-gay hysteria! He hates gays! People are dying and he's turning the country against us! Ohhhhhh, wail, agony, gnashing of teeth!"

Jeepers,they really can be like a bunch of women.

Or, like a bunch of whiney ass men.

MtnBiker
06-24-2012, 12:01 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/activists-take-out-frustration-ronald-reagan_647733.htmlLiberals are usually yelling for the government to stay out of there bedroom.

logroller
06-24-2012, 12:22 AM
when AIDS broke in the NYC Area back in the 1980's, NOBODY anywhere knew what it was... The original assessment was that it was a GAY CANCER. It took years to develop the protocols and the drugs we now have that have managed to extend the lifespan of those afflicted by DECADES.

So don't blame Reagan for people dying from AIDS.. We have all known the inherent risks of unprotected sex for hundreds of years.

It's the fault of the individual for not taking precautions... plain and simple. It has no basis in weather you are straight or Gay.

If all of those people had used a condom they wouldnt have died.... or a majority wouldnt have...

It boils down to individual choices... and many people made the wrong one... Reagan just started the ball rolling on finding a cure or effective treatments.
I watched some cry me a river documentary about this and I think their beef was over the lack of education regarding condom use, pushing instead, abstinence.

Kathianne
06-24-2012, 12:39 AM
I watched some cry me a river documentary about this and I think their beef was over the lack of education regarding condom use, pushing instead, abstinence.

Actually most of the spending had to do with the virus, not behavior. The spending though, was not stingy. The links is to the "Independent Gay Forum":

http://igfculturewatch.com/2004/06/24/reagan-and-aids-a-reassessment/


Reagan and AIDS: A Reassessment by Dale Carpenter on <abbr class="published" title="2004-06-24">June 24, 2004</abbr>

First published on June 24, 2004, in the Bay Area Reporter.



For gay Americans, any evaluation of Ronald Reagan's legacy begins and ends with his record on AIDS. According to the conventional view, Reagan was responsible for the deaths of thousands of gay men.


On the official day of national mourning for Reagan, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) closed its office (http://www.thetaskforce.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=692) to mourn those who have died of AIDS. NGLTF's executive director, Matt Foreman, issued an open letter (http://www.thetaskforce.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=690) blasting Reagan for "years of White House silence and inaction." Eric Rofes, a gay author, complained (http://www.lambdalit.org/Out%20of%20Bounds/Rageandfury.html) that Reagan "said nothing and did nothing" about AIDS.


But Foreman and some other critics have gone even further, suggesting that criminal malevolence and anti-gay bigotry drove Reagan administration policies on AIDS. "I wouldn't feel so angry if the Reagan administration's failing was due to ignorance or bureaucratic ineptitude," Foreman wrote in his open letter. "No, ... we knew then it was deliberate."


According to Wayne Besen, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, "we were considered expendable and forsaken by the President." Larry Kramer wrote in The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/917/917_kramer.asp) that Reagan was a "murderer," worse even than Adolf Hitler.


Though exaggerated and somewhat misplaced, the negligence theory is arguable. The malice theory is a calumny.


First, it's untrue that the Reagan administration "said nothing" in response to the disease. In June 1983, a year before the virus that causes AIDS had even been publicly identified, Reagan's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, announced at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the department "considers AIDS its number-one health priority." She specifically praised "the excellent work done by gay networks around the nation" that had spread information about the disease.


Despite the oft-repeated claim that Reagan himself didn't mention AIDS publicly until 1987, he actually first discussed it at a press conference (http://www.indegayforum.org/culturewatch/2004_06_06_archive.shtml#108683584467674163) in September 1985. Responding to a reporter's question about the need for more funding, Reagan accurately noted that the federal government had already spent more than half a billion dollars on AIDS up to that point. "So, this is a top priority with us," said Reagan. "Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."


Still, Reagan could have said more. He could have offered sympathy for the dying. He could have inveighed against discrimination. He could have urged prevention education. A master at using the bully pulpit for causes he believed in, Reagan manifestly failed to use it on the subject of AIDS.


In this, it must be noted, he was hardly alone. Most politicians of the age either failed to grasp the seriousness of AIDS or, grasping it, were reluctant to discuss openly a disease spread primarily through anal sex and dirty needles. For years, New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat presiding over the epicenter of the disease, refused even to meet with AIDS groups. AIDS was not mentioned from the podium of either national party convention in 1984. "Silence" about AIDS was a national failing, not one peculiar to Reagan.


Second, it's untrue that the Reagan administration "did nothing" in response to the disease. Deroy Murdock, a gay-friendly conservative columnist, has reviewed federal spending on AIDS programs during the Reagan years. According to Murdock, annual spending rose from eight million dollars in 1982 to more than $2.3 billion in 1989. In all, the federal government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during Reagan's tenure.


It's true that Congress repeatedly added to low-ball Reagan budget requests for AIDS. But that is a familiar dynamic between any White House and any Congress: the White House proposes minimal funding for a program knowing that Congress will add to any proposal. In the 1990's, for example, the Republican Congress added to Bill Clinton's budget requests for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.

Reagan's stinginess on AIDS funding, if that's what it was, was not due to anti-gay malevolence but was an extension of his stinginess on funding other domestic programs.


In this, too, Reagan was not alone. In his book And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts notes that in 1983 New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a hero to liberals, nixed (on fiscal grounds) the Republican-dominated state senate's bid to spend $5.2 million on AIDS research and prevention programs. Cuomo's state health commissioner responded to criticism by saying that hypertension was a more important health issue for the state.


Yes, we could have spent more, but that can always be said of federal spending. And it's unclear that additional funding would have accomplished much. "You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole," says Michael Fumento, an author specializing in health and science issues. We simply didn't know enough about the disease early on to spend huge sums wisely.


Gay journalist Bob Roehr, who has closely followed AIDS developments for 20 years, concurs. "I have little reason to believe that a different course of action by Reagan would have significantly altered the scientific state of knowledge" toward a "cure" or vaccine, he says.


Aside from spending, it was Reagan's surgeon general who sent the first-ever bulletin to all American homes warning explicitly about AIDS transmission. Reagan created the first presidential commission dealing with AIDS. And, in 1988, Reagan barred discrimination against federal employees with HIV.


As for Reagan being a murderer, we should remember that he didn't give anybody AIDS. We ourselves bear the lion's share of responsibility for that.

logroller
06-24-2012, 01:28 AM
Actually most of the spending had to do with the virus, not behavior. The spending though, was not stingy. The links is to the "Independent Gay Forum":

http://igfculturewatch.com/2004/06/24/reagan-and-aids-a-reassessment/

Facts smacks. Reagan was a monster doncha know.:laugh2:
/sarcasm

Kathianne
06-24-2012, 01:34 AM
Facts smacks. Reagan was a monster doncha know.:laugh2:
/sarcasm

Yeah.

Seriously he isn't on my list of top 10 presidents, though I'm growing more fond of him as time goes on. I never voted for him.

Still and all, he was more transparent than the gang currently holding court.

darin
06-24-2012, 06:25 AM
...Or maybe homosexuals could stop the risky behaviour. Maybe they could decide to stop the deviancy?

AIDS is brutal. No question. Blaming Reagan is like blaming the earth because you were mugged at night. If the Earth had not have rotated, it wouldn't have been dark outside!

taft2012
06-25-2012, 07:21 AM
Just a little historical reality check. From "Citizen Cohn".... biography of Roy Cohn.


Governor Ronald Reagan, who as President was the first openly tolerant occupant of the White House, faced a situation similar to the one which blew up on Lyndon Johnson (LBJ had a special ass't who was found to be gay). Newsweek reported in its November 13, 1967, issue that "From the start of his political career, actor Ronald Reagan has played the White Knight role to the hilt ... [but] Suddenly, there was the ugly charge brought by muckraking columnist Drew Pearson, that the California Republican had harbored a homosexual ring in his own executive office. Pearson wrote that eight men had been involved in the unseemly affair including two immediate members of the governor's staff, one of them as an aide who 'was probably closest to Reagan in his entire public life,' as well as an 'athletic adviser' to the governor and several other men prominent in California "

Reagan received Cohn and his partner at a White House reception, a ground-breaking moment duly unreported by the mainstream liberal news media.

The gay issue is like any other minority issue for Democrats. They leap from one extreme to the next. In 1965 they were hosing down and lynching blacks, 10 years later they were looking for black votes with affirmative action and racial quotas. In the 1970s Walter Mondale was at the Mexican border with Cesar Chavez protesting illegal immigration, today Dems are at the border handing out invitations.

In 1967 Ronald Reagan was reported as scandalously harboring homosexuals in the governor's office, 20 years later he hated gays and sat by idly as they were wiped out.

And since Dems apparently get to write history... all that is reported nowdays is their current positions.

taft2012
06-25-2012, 07:55 PM
I feel compelled to bump this back up to the top ....:lol:

That's a damned fine post:laugh:

Nell's Room
06-27-2012, 04:49 AM
...Or maybe homosexuals could stop the risky behaviour. Maybe they could decide to stop the deviancy?

AIDS is brutal. No question. Blaming Reagan is like blaming the earth because you were mugged at night. If the Earth had not have rotated, it wouldn't have been dark outside!

The only homosexuals who engage in risky behavior are those who have unprotected sex with strangers - much like heterosexual one night stands. If people would only use a condom, the rate of infection would drop. But people will continue to go out, get drunk, and just fuck anyone they feel like, without even bothering to learn that strangers first name. Its not homosexuals who are the problem, its the irresponsible fools who can't be bothered using protection.