Worst President of the 20th Century

[DeletedUser]

Again. With your twaddle. Go bug someone else. You just said he could have done more. End of debate. Thank you.

Carter is getting a pretty good representation for worst president. Go dig up some outstanding facts on him.

 

[DeletedUser]

He could have done more, but you said he did nothing. I have proven that false while using real information. Me saying he could have done more is not a lie. Someone saying he did nothing is.

Again, he could have done more, so could have the democrats and the rest of the world. To blame Reagan for AIDS is laughable. I also said that before.

 

[DeletedUser]

Look Nancy, if it makes you feel more secure in your little bubble to call me a liar then fine. Are you happy now. My brother deserved to die. Reagan was the greatest damn president ever. You are so knowledgeable I bow down to kiss your freaking toes. I mean, if you, as a 13 year old knew all about AIDS then of course everyone must have known. Certainly there were no morality issues associated with the AIDS virus. I mean after all, it was such a simple matter a genius like you at 13 had it all figured out. God damn you really are a piece of work.

Are you really that dense? Never mind. I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[DeletedUser]

No your brother did not deserve to die, and I have never said anything like that. I also said he was wrong for saying it was a moral issue. Page 8 first post. But I have had this debate before and already knew what I was talking about before hand. There is a reason I used $500 mil US in an earlier post, and thats because I already knew the real number was almost 12 times that. Yet some jumped up and down saying 500 mil makes it a chance a cure is discovered. No it doesnt seeing as the real figure was almost 6 billion, not 500 million.

Blame Reagan if you choose. Hate his guts all you want and for that matter mine. It still does not change the legitimate facts that Reagan did try. He did get the federal gov't to spend close to 6 billion on its research and education.

As a 13 year old, I had been educated about the disease. Because the education was there. Thats all im saying.

I am sorry for your loss. I apologize about calling you a liar. But the Reagan administration did fund research and development on AIDS. That has been proven beyond what anyone else can say.

 

[DeletedUser3717]

He could have done more, but you said he did nothing. I have proven that false while using real information. Me saying he could have done more is not a lie. Someone saying he did nothing is.

Again, he could have done more, so could have the democrats and the rest of the world. To blame Reagan for AIDS is laughable. I also said that before.

I quote thee

"He could have done more"

So your not offending her in anyway..

-.-

 

[DeletedUser]

What is the point of this thread? Obviously the conservatives are going to choose one side and the liberals the other. Then it turns into a fight.

The only way constructive debate can be held on such a topic is if one thread is started for liberals only and another for conservatives only.

I disagree. I consider Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower two of the best presidents of the 20th century.

And I agree with Elmyr. As a matter of fact, JM, no one was even arguing to begin with. Good call.

It looks as though I was right, Elmyr and Divest. People are going nuts rippin' each other's heads off in here.



However, because we have reached a Constitutional question, I must speak.

Are you blaming Reagan for AIDS?

He didn't help that's for sure.

Killer please don't start me on this path with Reagan. His AIDS policies (of which there were none) speak for themselves. I will tell you that I take his inaction very personally . . . .

He could have federally funded it, not out of the change he found in the White House cushions, but with real money behind it.

The government has no business in this. Please, go read the Constitution. No where in there does it allow the government to do any such thing. What you people must understand is that once we overstep the Constitution in one place, the barrier holding back tyranny is gone.

The private sector is much more efficient at these kinds of things than the government is. The American people are very generous; we will donate millions of dollars to cures research.

We in America are becoming used to the federal government stepping in and fixing things. We've got Social Security, "stimulus" packages, bailouts, etc. These things are unconstitutional, and inefficient. Let people save their own money for retirement; if businesses can't survive, let them go bankrupt. Why throw money at a business that could correctly manage itself? We now see what happens; GM finally filed bankruptcy. If we'd just let the private sector work, we'd see a return of unparalleled prosperity in America.

 

[DeletedUser]

What is wrong with you people? Then the government should not fund any attempt at a vaccination for H1N1. They should not have bothered educating anyone about Polio or working for a cure. Let's have Kentucky do it all! Or maybe Wisconsin. Cheese cures all, news at 11.

 

[DeletedUser]

Chill ok? Chill. People r clueless idiots. We all have opinions. Calm down you sound angry.

 

[DeletedUser]

James has spoken, now guys, we all need to calm the heck down, ok? Denisero and killerinstinct, lets get back to who the worst president is, unless someone is saying that reagan was the worst president, then allow me to butt in.
Reagan=top 10, if not top 5, if not top 3, if not top 2. Washington uberpwns all!

Now as for the aids debate, Jimma Carter could have been the one to acknowledge it, but, he was busy being stupid and made a mess that Reagan had to clean up, and then he later acknowledged it. Back to who and what was the worst president.


*Places emphasis on the word Jimma so that Divest doesn't point out the 'spelling error'*

 

[DeletedUser]

Chill ok? Chill. People r clueless idiots. We all have opinions. Calm down you sound angry.

This is why I think this place should be sealed to anyone that can't demonstrate they're at at least a high school reading level.

No one is mad at anyone, she simply bolded her post because she's frustrated dealing with no nothings like Justin Michael and then people who sound like they know something, like killerinstinct. It is becoming a mess, but not for the right reasons. It seems to be mostly people who don't know what they're talking about v.s. everybody else.

 

[DeletedUser]

to be fair Carter has been a far worse ex-president than he ever was a sitting one .

 

[DeletedUser]

to be fair Carter has been a far worse ex-president than he ever was a sitting one .

I don't know about that. After all, his polices gave rise to the Taliban. Where would we be if that group had never risen to power.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is why I think this place should be sealed to anyone that can't demonstrate they're at at least a high school reading level.

No one is mad at anyone, she simply bolded her post because she's frustrated dealing with no nothings like Justin Michael and then people who sound like they know something, like killerinstinct. It is becoming a mess, but not for the right reasons. It seems to be mostly people who don't know what they're talking about v.s. everybody else.

Sound like they know something? I proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt giving legitimate proof to back up my claims.

 

[DeletedUser]

Killer, would making a comparison between the AIDS response by governments in other countries and the results, be enough to satisfy you? If so, take a look at Australia's handling of this health issue (inc. funding for NGOs & government bodies, blood screening, needle exchange programs, education and massive media campaigns) and then find me one excuse for Reagan's sloth.

Denisero might seem to exercise a little too much hyperbole for your taste, but I think it is an impossible sell to suggest that Reagan was not directly responsible for allowing the epidemic to spread through inaction which could only have been motivated by pandering to his ignorant and prejudiced christian-conservative base.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not really because I have already stated that he should have done more. My part of the debate was in reference to it being said that Reagan did nothing and never said anything about the disease publicly until 1987. I proved that to be 100% false as he said it publicly in 1985. His Secretary of HHS, in 1983 declared AIDS to be the number one health priority, and she didnt say it without Reagan not knowing she was going to say it. Meaning even though he didnt say it publicly until 1985, he was definitely talking about with his administration privately prior to 1983. Also if you go to the link, you will find where Cuomo's administratrion, albeit a governor, described hypertension as a much more serious problem than AIDS in 1983. Cuomo being a revered liberal in this country.

You will also find in that link where people who have followed the situation for 20 years or longer have stated that they cant see any drastic changes had his policy been changed.I will take their word over yours, no offense.

It was said he tried to block AIDS education. I was alive at that time and again, that is blatantly false. Education about AIDS was readily available at that time in this country. Saying the attempts to block education about it are 100% wrong. He did no such thing.

Alot of Australias response was grass roots movements. There rather large education program including TV commercials didnt start until 1987. At which time Reagan was starting to dump heavy money into AIDS research and education.

One more point. Reagan was an actor prior to going into politics. He was friends with quite a few gay actors. He was the first president to publicly talk about gay people as their own group. He went against the conservative base in regard to the gay community. He respected them and tried to help them. More so than the any other president did. So no he didnt pander to his "prejudiced chistian-conservative base" when it came to gay people or AIDS. His secretary of HHS actually praised the gay community in 1983 about them spreading the word about AIDS, which made the conservatives cringe.

USA reacted slower than I would have liked, but the Reagan administration was not the reason for this. It was considered a taboo subject that Reagan actually went against the conservative base on by declaring it the number 1 health priority facing the USA in 1983. Only 2 years after he took office. Not 6 or 7 like people are trying to say.

You also dont understand how the US govt works. Any govt programs would have to be approved by congress. Further slowing down the process of action against AIDS. Most congressmen, whether Republican or Democrat were afraid to broach the subject, creating massive hamstringing and delay in trying to get AIDS programs funded and up and running. Not only was the liberal congress afraid to talk about it but the conservatives in congress as well. Liberals are not apart of this so called "prejudiced christian-conservative base" The liberals share a large part of the blame as well as the conservatives. Reagan couldnt just say "hey, we know have an AIDS program" Thats not how the USA works, rightly or wrongly. Blame America for a slow response... Sure, but to blame Reagan is just prejudiced and is showing a massive lack of understanding about how it actually went down.

When you blame Reagan for inaction against AIDS, you are either ignorant to the facts, or prejudiced against Reagan to not care about the facts. Thats the truth, and whether you want to believe it or not is irrelavent in my eyes.

 

[DeletedUser]

Alot of Australias response was grass roots movements. There rather large education program including TV commercials didnt start until 1987. At which time Reagan was starting to dump heavy money into AIDS research and education.

Yes, the Australian response definitely began with grassroots organisations, but these were already receiving significant government funding which enabled these groups to run broad educational campaigns before the government got their own bodies and initiatives and research centres operational.

1982 - 1st Australian diagnosis.
1983 - AIDS Prospective Study - epidemiological research which received government funding
- First dedicated outpatients clinic (govt. funded)
1984 - Australian Health Minister declares "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We face one of the most serious public health problems this country has faced since federation…" and calls emergency meeting.
- [/FONT]Money allocated to AIDs services inc. community orgs and state govts for education and support services
-Govt establishes National Advisory Committee on AIDS (advisory body for education, legal and health policy)
- Government establishes National AIDS Task force (scientific and medical advisory)
- Government establishes National Reference Laboratory (for managing testing)
1985 - Government is first in the world to introduce universal screening of blood donations
- First testing clinics open. Testing is free for everyone (ie; government funded)
- Government funds the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations[/FONT] (a federation of all those "grassroots" groups who provided the earliest educational programs. They had, oh gee... government support.)
1986 - more money for both social and medical research, more money for community orgs providing education and support services, and so on and so on and so on...

Yes, the huge government TV campaign was in 1987, but they were not inactive prior to that and to simply credit the community groups alone, rather than recognising the cooperative effort is incorrect.

As for your argument that things have to be approved by Congress, exactly how do you think the Australian government works? We have 2 houses (the House of Representatives and the Senate) through which legislation, inc. budgets, must pass and a head of state (the Governor-General) who has the authority to approve or veto legislation. We also have states which have their own constitutions and their own authority (like education etc, like in the US) and any conflicts between the states and the Commonwealth (federal govt) must be adjudicated by the courts. ie; We have a legislature, an executive and a judiciary as does the US, and the same kinds of political fighting and beauracracy to slow down our govt response too so the comparison remains fair.

Despite the fact that you have provided some more specifics (ie; what he said when) he simply did not get the job done and he obviously didn't try very hard either. And as for Reagan's gay-friendly credentials, I don't think they are worth going into. Name me anything he actually achieved in terms of LGBT rights. In fact, even show me that it was somewhere on his agenda and I'll retract my statement if your evidence is convincing. Whether he has gay friends or not is irrelevant.

When you blame Reagan for inaction against AIDS, you are either ignorant to the facts, or prejudiced against Reagan to not care about the facts. Thats the truth, and whether you want to believe it or not is irrelavent in my eyes.

I'm not in the US, so I have no personal feelings against Reagan, and I am operfectly happy to say I don't know everything, and incorporate new info into my opinion. And I'm definitely not saying he was the worst president as I'm not in a position to make an adequate comparison. But despite the counterpoints you made to some specific statements from Dee, the guy didn't do nearly enough to get things happening, and as the leader of your country it was his administration's responsibility. You think we didn't have the same kinds of prejudice and political resistance going on here?

 

[DeletedUser]

This is why I think this place should be sealed to anyone that can't demonstrate they're at at least a high school reading level.

No one is mad at anyone, she simply bolded her post because she's frustrated dealing with no nothings like Justin Michael

"no nothings"

You fail the high school reading level, Divest. Sorry, you have to leave now.

:nowink:

 

[DeletedUser]

nice one JM

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not in the US, so I have no personal feelings against Reagan, and I am operfectly happy to say I don't know everything, and incorporate new info into my opinion. And I'm definitely not saying he was the worst president as I'm not in a position to make an adequate comparison. But despite the counterpoints you made to some specific statements from Dee, the guy didn't do nearly enough to get things happening, and as the leader of your country it was his administration's responsibility. You think we didn't have the same kinds of prejudice and political resistance going on here?

But if you apply the same standards to Reagan that you do to Australia and the rest of the world, you can easily say that everyone was at fault. Major action aganinst AIDS primarily started in 1983, Including Australia and Europe. Yet that part of it seems to be left out. How convenient for the rest of the world and democrats in the USA.

You will know point out that the first case didnt show in Australia until 1982. Meaning Australia had seen this disease around the world and it was much easier for them to unite together to begin action. That didnt happen in the USA. Democrats didnt see AIDS as an issue until 83/84 time frame. The Reagan administration saw it as a priority in 83 and had dome some things prior to 83. Some things that even Europe and Australia were not doing.

To many people associate the president as the leader of the USA. To a degree that is true, to a degree it is not. The presidents main job is foreign affairs. The main job is to be Commander in Chief. Congress can pass any law in the USA without their ever needing to involve the president. All they would need to do is be able to override a presidential veto which requires 2/3 of congress to do. The president can not make law without congress, ever. Congress has a much larger affect on domestic issues than the president does. Even though that will be argued, its still reality as we know it. Reagan couldnt move on the disease himself. He needed the democrats, as they controlled congress, to also move on it and they never did. Democrats in 1983 were still saying AIDS was nothing important. That hypertension was more of a concern.

So if Europe reacted to AIDS in 1983, if Australia reacted to the disease in 1983, if USA reacted to the disease in 1983. How is Reagan the only leader targeted?

In July of 1982 there were only 452 known cases reported to the CDC. A lot of what Denisero quotes of the numbers were never known at that time. Those numbers werent fully realized until the late 80's/early 90's. So to say Reagan realized the full destructive nature of AIDS with the numbers she quoted is rediculously flawed. Those numbers were not known in 1982/1983. They may be a true representation of the numbers at that time, but to say those were known numbers at that time is a blatant lie.

Again, the world as a whole reacted in 1983, not prior. Yet everyone is letting every other country off the hook except for the USA and even then doesnt want to give an accurate report of who could have done what. Its rediculous to blame Reagan for gay bashing or bowing to christians which is all this is. Its been going on since the Clinton administration and has been proven wrong every time.

1983 seems to be the magical year for action against AIDS. The Reagan administration was already acting by 1983, and had already called it the first health priority for the USA. The democrats who controlled congress werent. Democrats, Europe, and Australia share the same blame as Reagan, its just for convenience they seem to be left out, its just Reagan bashing. Lets at least call it what it is in reality.

So... If Reagan reacted in 1983 (which he reacted in 82 tbh), and if Australia reacted in 1983, and if Europe reacted in 1983. Do you still want to hold the rediculous assumption that only Reagan is to blame?

 

[DeletedUser]

Killer, we're talking about US presidents, so please stop trying to cast the blame for your country and administrations failings on everyone else.

I haven't got a clue about the worst president as I'm not american