I have a question, X. What was your problem with my original example of “Christians”? Is that not something someone could be prejudiced against? Did that not paint a picture of my point (which you seem to be ignoring) being that Reagan’s actions were basically a hate crime, and if it had happened to a different group of people, he would have done a helluva lot more?
Fair enough. I’ll agree with you. I think that fewer people would be pissed if he had said something earlier.
At the same time, I think the number would have been irrelevant. We would still have had this thread. There still would have been almost no one willing to say “Well, what could he have done, give him a break”.
But all in all, your right. He could have, and probably should have, shown support for a part of the population which was really scared.
The difference is, the people defending him would have some justification other than, “he didn’t have the cure, what could he do (besides education and awareness)?”
When could he have done this? Look back at the history of AIDS link I posted a while ago. Or simply google up one of your own. For several years at the begining of the AIDS crisis, no one knew what aids was where it came from, or how it was spread. What could he have said in 1981 that would even have been coherent?
xtisme:
Oh, man. Yer killing me here. More realistic? The above scenario? Why not get off the dime and answer the question that Zagadka asked in the first place? (A question, I must say, that involves a scenario at least as ludicrous as the above. However, to say that you are making a situation more realistic and then propose the the anal leakage that you did. . .well, I’m still chuckling.)
And to answer your lame-assed question. I don’t know what I would do. Conversely, if the hypothetical proposed by Zagadka had occured, I feel comfortable saying that people would march on the White House with pitchforks. Rightly. 'Samatter of fact, if that happened, I would be helping out in any way I could, and I’m an atheist. The very fucking least that the president could do is to say, "My heart is heavy at this time of much pain and suffering by those in the heartland. A nations thoughts and prayers go out to them, blah blah blah.
What could Bush have said the morning of 9/11?
Its probably escaped you, but Christians make up a majority in the country. If any president did what you are implying he’d be impeached in about a min. Its that democracy thing, you know?
So your example was, you know, a bad one. The reason I picked Nazi’s and KKK members was I was reasonably sure it was something you didn’t approve of. Any fringe group would have worked.
-XT
Good point. How about… I dunno. What makes up 10% of the population (apparently making it OK to ignore the extinction of)… I mean, this is all COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that AIDS potentially threatened everyone in the county who had sex.
I know, I have it! What if a skyscraper carrying 3,000 people collapsed, and the President didn’t say anything?
Oooh, what if 10,000 people in Tempe, Arizona mysteriously died from an unknown disease?
Are any of these cases “OK” for the President to ignore?
In fact, you admitted above that should a small portion of the Christian population die by freak accident, “if any president did what you are implying he’d be impeached in about a min” - so why the hell wasn’t Reagan, and why is everyone busy kissing his ass now?
And if he was so prejudiced against gay people that he viewed them as unworthy of compassion, then he deserves to be criticized (and even hated) for that prejudice.
I sincerely hope you understand the problem with the analogy you just made.
To some extent, sure. Do you have even the smallest shred of evidence that he though this way?
What? All Bush could have (and did) say that morning was express sympathy for the people, promise to find out what happened and bring justice to whoever did it.
Reagan could have made similar statements regarding AIDS.
While Bush may not have been able to do much in those first few hours of 9/11 - everyone was in something of a panic and we needed to hear SOMETHING that it was being controlled.
Do you think people would be justifying it if Bush had waited 3 days before letting anyone in the government say or do anything about 9/11?
What if AIDS was a Soviet biological attack? Would Reagan have reacted any faster or slower then?
I have to laugh at this. Thank you very much. The idea that any defense is necessary for some of the hateful things you have been posting here and other Reagan bashing threads is very amusing. 
You’re kidding, right? You must be.
Cite?
Other than his documented actions, or lack thereof? By what possible other reason could they be explained?
And xtisme, if I understand you correctly, basically you’re saying that Reagan ignored it because his personal prejudices prevented him from doing so. I’m glad we’re in agreement, except about the part where I find that reprehensible.
Sure. There were not any viable actions he could have taken before about 1983 or so at the latest. Remember, no one was sure what this thing was for quite some time. Now, it took him some time to do anything about it after this. I agree with xtisme that the most probable cause of this is that he could not get his head wraped around the problem.
But I have to repeat the OP. His lack of actions implies that there were actions he could have taken. Can you name them? Remember you have to give time frames. It is not enough to say that so many thousands of people died when such a number was not obvious until after he left office. If you say that he should have said something, you need to include when he could have said it. You may have to include some background information on how widespread the crisis was at the point you are talking about.
But, MaxTheVool’s contention that “And if he was so prejudiced against gay people that he viewed them as unworthy of compassion, then he deserves to be criticized (and even hated) for that prejudice.”
while true as a conditional, needs some other evidence before you can say it has been satisfied.
Again, when? Remember, AIDS was a very puzzling syndrome for quite a long time. It was not even obviously contagious for at least a year. After that, it was not clear how it was passed on. This is the essential characteristic of the two tragedies that you miss. One was obvious and sudden. The other was hidden and over an extended period.
Remember, lest we forget, the AIDS epidemic started in the mid to late 70s!
And the next 4 years he was what, waiting for his speech writer to get off the can?
Granted, he was pretty stupid.
Um, yes… he could have followed roughly the same course as the Berkeley Free Clinic. SURELY the Federal Government had the resources to -
OH WAIT! That’s right, they DIDN’T INVESTIGATE IT AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE REAGAN SAT ON IT.
Whew, that one almost slipped by us!
Ignoring the deaths of thousands of your people: Not sufficient grounds for you to be said to dislike them.
K…