Bush AIDS Appointee Calls it a Gay Plague

[headscratcher4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30410-2003Jan22.html

Yes, but fortunately he didn't opine that the nation would have been better off had Strom Thurman beem president in 1948 or he'd of been "otta-there"!....

[Jon_in_london]

The words ignorant and bigot spring to mind.

Brilliant. I had thought public figures had learned not to be so openly narrow-minded about AIDS ten years ago...

[Victor Danilchenko]

Oh, that's good! What next -- apointing a Klan Wizard as a social harmony liason?

Another part I liked was:

Next week, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is scheduled to swear in .. Thacker, a former Bob Jones University employee, who says he contracted the AIDS virus after his wife was infected through a blood transfusion.
...
In his speeches and writings on his Web site and elsewhere, Thacker has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" rather than a lifestyle and asserted that "Christ can rescue the homosexual."That's all we need, a repressed fundie homophobe on the HIV commission.

[Graham]

This bit was good too:

Thacker's speeches said: "Homosexuality is not inborn biologically, just as incest and bestiality are not inborn. Studies have show that thousands of homosexuals have been set free from this sin."

And they're fighting the War on Terror against fundamentalism?

Those of you Americans who are hanging on to your guns for use against the government might want to get alittle target practice in.

Seriously though, how could this sort of behaviour fail to cause alarm amongst rational people?

[King of the Americas]

...although he never said the word "AIDS" in public, it was muttered much in the Reagan White House that this was inded a Gay Plague.

It was this ignorance that allowed the disease into the Nation's Blood Bank...

"Oh what men may do, what men dare do, what men daily do, not knowing what they do..."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Graham
Seriously though, how could this sort of behaviour fail to cause alarm amongst rational people?

Because we don't have enough celebrities dying from AIDS, and for most people, ( most = people without the disease, or a close friend or relative with it ) it is a non-issue.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...although he never said the word "AIDS" in public, it was muttered much in the Reagan White House that this was inded a Gay Plague.

It was this ignorance that allowed the disease into the Nation's Blood Bank...

"Oh what men may do, what men dare do, what men daily do, not knowing what they do..."

In 1990 Ronald Reagan appeared in a televised public service announcement for the benefit of the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, in which he said:

"We can all grow and learn in our lives and I've learned all kinds of people can get AIDS, even children."

...among other things.

It may have taken him awhile to acknowledge the AIDS problem, but it's not fair or accurate to say that he NEVER so much as spoke the the term AIDS in public.

[King of the Americas]

...1990...!?

And when was the first case of NON sexually transmitted AIDS victum diagnosed, and when did they die?

[panduh]

Geezus. How much longer? I mean really, how much longer will it be before we have a complete theocracy. I need to know, because I will need to buy plane tickets out of this country and away from this moronic government.

[Graham]

Originally posted by panduh
Geezus. How much longer? I mean really, how much longer will it be before we have a complete theocracy. I need to know, because I will need to buy plane tickets out of this country and away from this moronic government.

Actually that was more the point I was aiming for than specifically referring to the AIDS situation.

What's the feeling on the ground, btw. Americans of the forum, by your own observations, is the a general feeling amongst your fellow countrymen that things are getting out of hand heading-towards-dictatorship-wise?

It doesn't look good from here.

Graham

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by panduh
Geezus. How much longer? I mean really, how much longer will it be before we have a complete theocracy. I need to know, because I will need to buy plane tickets out of this country and away from this moronic government. There's an election in 2004, right? I just hope the Democrats can field a competent candidate, cause Bush is making me like him less and less all the time.

[panduh]

Well, after Gore called it quits, I have been in a huge funk. I am heartened by Bush's rapidly descending poll numbers, but his approval ratings could just as easily jump up again if we had another terrorist attack, or perhaps were engaged in some sort of war. Like the way it jumped from 50% to 86% the day after 9/11. You can bet that if there is some sort of fighting going on, the people are gonna want the Republicans to do it. (Dems are talkers and peace-niks, don't ya know...) The current administration also has a good propaganda team that really hits home with the "Middle America" set.

I could see a scenario where Bush wins a second term, fights more wars and paves the way for his lil bro Jeb in 2008.

Originally posted by Aoidoi
There's an election in 2004, right? I just hope the Democrats can field a competent candidate, cause Bush is making me like him less and less all the time.

[headscratcher4]

NPR news at the top of the hour reported that this nominee has withdrawn his name....

[King of the Americas]

...that he himself has AIDS.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...1990...!?

And when was the first case of NON sexually transmitted AIDS victum diagnosed, and when did they die? Junkies were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS as early as 1981. When they died I don't know, but I'd guess they survived a couple of years at the most.

In December 1982 a child who had received transfusions of blood and blood products died from infections related to AIDS.

[King of the Americas]

...I was looking for:

"In December 1982 a child who had received transfusions of blood and blood products died from infections related to AIDS."

In the early 80's a kid dies, almost a decade later, Reagan FIRST says the word...
:rolleyes:

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...1990...!?

And when was the first case of NON sexually transmitted AIDS victum diagnosed, and when did they die?

Beside the point... I'm not trying to defend Ronald Reagan's handling of the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, I'm merely correcting your erroneous claim that Ronald Reagan NEVER publically spoke the term AIDS.

Facts may oftentimes be jagged little pills, but you've got to swallow them nonetheless.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Psiload
Beside the point... I'm not trying to defend Ronald Reagan's handling of the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, I'm merely correcting your erroneous claim that Ronald Reagan NEVER publically spoke the term AIDS.

Facts may oftentimes be jagged little pills, but you've got to swallow them nonetheless. April 1, 1987:

President Reagan made his first major speech on AIDS, when he addressed the Philadelphia College of Physicians. Reagan advocated a modest federal role in AIDS education, having told reporters the previous day that he favoured AIDS education. May 31, 1987:

President Reagan gave a speech about AIDS at a dinner of the American Foundation for AIDS Research and particularly focused on increasing routine and compulsory AIDS testing. From 'The history of AIDS' on avert.org.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...I was looking for:

"In December 1982 a child who had received transfusions of blood and blood products died from infections related to AIDS."

In the early 80's a kid dies, almost a decade later, Reagan FIRST says the word...
:rolleyes:

But you said that he NEVER said the word... sloppy, just plain sloppy. Your crack team of researchers seems to be slipping.

[King of the Americas]

...I retort, INDEED you are right, and once again 'I' am wrong, but only slightly.

My insight on this issue comes partly from a movie I saw with Alan Alda. I remember a character in it saying "Reagan still hasn't said the word in public", even after it had been YEARS after the first NON sexually transmitted carrier of the disease DIED.

Okay, so I'll ADMIT it he said the word publically a half a decade after a child died who did not get it through 'being gay'.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...I retort, INDEED you are right, and once again 'I' am wrong, but only slightly.

My insight on this issue comes partly from a movie I saw with Alan Alda. I remember a character in it saying "Reagan still hasn't said the word in public", even after it had been YEARS after the first NON sexually transmitted carrier of the disease DIED.

Okay, so I'll ADMIT it he said the word publically a half a decade after a child died who did not get it through 'being gay'.

And the Band Played On... great flick.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6303073573.01._PE_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I think I saw that movie five years ago... or maybe it was never... same difference. ;)

[King of the Americas]

:o

You've got me...

:o

You have used my own point, that Reagan did not 'openly address AIDS quickly or publically when it was killing innocent civilians', and used its jagged inaccuracy to disembowel my argument...

Oh whatever will I do?:cool:

[ceo_esq]

Hard to believe that only 20 years ago - before a clear notion of the disease, its pathology and vectors emerged - "gay plague" was part of common parlance. And remember the first name that medical science gave to the symptoms? GRID, Gay Related Immune Deficiency.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
:o

You've got me...

:o

You have used my own point, that Reagan did not 'openly address AIDS quickly or publically when it was killing innocent civilians', and used its jagged inaccuracy to disembowel my argument...

Oh whatever will I do?:cool:

First, your original claim was that Ronald Reagan NEVER publically uttered the term AIDS in public... one naturally assumes that your point was that R. R. NEVER addressed the issue of AIDS. Please excuse me for overlooking a point you never made, while I was correcting a mistake that you certainly did.

Second, please explain what constitutes an "innocent civilians" in the context of AIDS. If there are innocents, does that mean that there are guilty parties in the AIDS epidemic?

Whatever will you do? Maybe you can start by checking your facts beforehand. If you find that too tedious or difficult, perhaps you might try accepting correction more graciously.

[King of the Americas]

"I know what I said, I don't have to have it read BACK to me..."

(In my best Jack.)

Hey I admit it, I made a mistake. YOU called me on it, and I take back what I said. I even used TWO of those damn emo-cons that I NEVER use...

Appearantly, President Reagan did mention "AIDS" in public before he resigned, even if it was 5 years after the first innocent, non-sexually transmitted victum of the disease died.

Let us understand something perfectly clear, STD's prey upon the weak and the lonely. You would be in NO DANGER from them if you were in a monogomus relationship with an uninfected partner, who was also monogomus to you. This behavior is not unsimiliar to what we refer to as Marriage. And so long as neither party strays from this relationship, neither is in danger of an STD. Some might even go as far as to say that there is a moral aspect to this kind of behavior, and that those who do not follow this example are doing the BAD thing, and they are putting themselves in REAL DANGER.

You asked what or who are the innocent ones in this scenerio?

I mean to say, that they are the ones who contracted one or more of these STD's through NO SEXUAL ACT, but through a blood exchange with tainted infect.

Know this, when you go 'out to play', you may not live to do so another day.

There IS behavior that can be deemed irresponsible, and rightly so. I don't think there is any reason why you shouldn't already know this, Psiload?

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Graham
This bit was good too:

Thacker's speeches said: "Homosexuality is not inborn biologically, just as incest and bestiality are not inborn. Studies have show that thousands of homosexuals have been set free from this sin."

And they're fighting the War on Terror against fundamentalism?

Those of you Americans who are hanging on to your guns for use against the government might want to get alittle target practice in.

Seriously though, how could this sort of behaviour fail to cause alarm amongst rational people?

I think you can now understand why so many of us Americans are so in favor of the 2nd Amendment. We actually have to deal with these wackjobs on a daily basis.

"This is why we need Uzis."

Jeeze, what frickin' lunes. "Read a book!...other than the Bible the KKK gave you when you were a kid.."

[King of the Americas]

...I thought the issue was dangerous sexual behavior...NOT homosexuality.

Love who you will, but love ONLY them and so long as they long they love only YOU, neither of you are in danger from STD's, so long as neither of you are infected.

[Fade]

Remember Bush also appointed a "say three prayers and call me in the morning" person to the womans health counsel.

Wonder what the job market is like in Canada ~_~

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Graham
This bit was good too:

Thacker's speeches said: "Homosexuality is not inborn biologically, just as incest and bestiality are not inborn. Studies have show that thousands of homosexuals have been set free from this sin."

And they're fighting the War on Terror against fundamentalism?

Those of you Americans who are hanging on to your guns for use against the government might want to get alittle target practice in.

Seriously though, how could this sort of behaviour fail to cause alarm amongst rational people?

It DOES cause alarm. Considerable alarm. This is why you have a Second Amendment. It's the one thing that keeps America safe from the loonies and psychotics we keep seeing emerging on all sides of the political spectrum. Frankly, I'm surprised by the media: Why the hell wasn't this reported sooner? Like when the frigging nomination was brought up?

Bob Jones University. Home of color codes for dating, and ingrained hatred for anyone not devoted to the Rev's narrow definition of who's saved and who's not. By his definition, you have to wonder if he'd even let Jesus into heaven.

[kitsune]

http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2003/030123thacker.asp

Looks like he's decided to step down. Shucks.

People with such views just make me want to spit nails. :mad: