C-SPAN ranks the Presidents

INNOCENT Japanese people were being killed in the streets after Pearl Harbor. In many ways, it was for their own safety.

And no, it's not any worse than the Patriot Act. Both were equally wrong, as both were based on little more than fear and prejudice.

LOL...so Japanese Prison Camps...were for the safety...of the japanese? :lmao: :lmao:

What Roosevelt did was wrong, it was disgusting and it was indefensible. Period.

How was the Patriot Act based on prejudice?
 
Hate to speak ill of the deceased, but Reagan dserves to be lower simply for his blatant disregard of people with AIDS.

Wait...so Washington and Jefferson should be lower for their blatant disregard of people with black skin?
 
Wait...so Washington and Jefferson should be lower for their blatant disregard of people with black skin?

You're comparing two hundred years worth of social differences.

AIDS was an epidemic affecting all Americans, and Reagan did **** to stop it becasue he would have alienated his buddies in the Religious Right who thought it was a "gay disease" and that it was God's way of wiping out sinning sodomites. People in Reagan's own cabinet have since confirmed that he showed little personal regard for those suffering (even after watching his good friend Rock Hudson suffer slowly from the disease). I remember one staff member saying that he thought it would go away like the Measles.
 
AIDs was first identified in 1981, when Reagan entered office....the disease and its level of contagion was not fully understood at the time. Reagan's views on it weren't that outside the mainstream. Reagan did turn around and provided some funding for its treatment at the federal level, but he did not make it a priority as some lobbyists who wanted to discuss safe sex and teach "safe" drug use in this country wanted to at the time.
 
Wait...so Washington and Jefferson should be lower for their blatant disregard of people with black skin?

millions of people around the world didn't die because they had black skin, not to mention the amount of arrogance around AIDS in the 80s was ridiculous (ie, only gay people could contract it)
 
AIDs was first identified in 1981, when Reagan entered office....the disease and its level of contagion was not fully understood at the time. Reagan's views on it weren't that outside the mainstream. Reagan did turn around and provided some funding for its treatment at the federal level, but he did not make it a priority as some lobbyists in this country wanted to at the time.

And that was unforgivable. Millions of people died on his watch, and he did nothing about it. Reagan never spoke a word about AIDS until May 31st, 1987. He had been president for six years at that point, and the effects of the virus were well known by that point. The absolute latest Reagan should've reacted was 1984, not wait until his second term was half over to do something.
 
millions of people around the world didn't die because they had black skin, not to mention the amount of arrogance around AIDS in the 80s was ridiculous (ie, only gay people could contract it)

uhhhmm....several thousands of blacks died in the slave trade. And show me where Reagan said only gays could contract the disease. It is a fact taht disproportionally homosexuals at the time (and still even now) contracted the disease.
 
uhhhmm....several thousands of blacks died in the slave trade. And show me where Reagan said only gays could contract the disease. It is a fact taht disproportionally homosexuals at the time (and still even now) contracted the disease.

They died in the slave trade, but it wasn't like their black skin "infected" them like a virus. I didn't say Reagan said that only gays could contract AIDS, but not a lot was done to put down that theory.
 
And that was unforgivable. Millions of people died on his watch, and he did nothing about it. Reagan never spoke a word about AIDS until May 31st, 1987. He had been president for six years at that point, and the effects of the virus were well known by that point. The absolute latest Reagan should've reacted was 1984, not wait until his second term was half over to do something.

:whatever: That's propaganda. Is he responsible for AIDS related deaths in other countries? Thousands of Americans did die due to HIV, but not millions. He did speak about AIDS in 1985, skepticism about pro-AIDS lobby that suggested that AIDs wasn't contagious.
 
uhhhmm....several thousands of blacks died in the slave trade. And show me where Reagan said only gays could contract the disease. It is a fact taht disproportionally homosexuals at the time (and still even now) contracted the disease.

Okay, let's say AIDS only affected homosexuals. Let's say that the millions people around the word who died from it in the early 1980s' were all gay. If that was the case, would you support not doing anything if the general attitude was, "Well, it's only killing off a repressed minority of people, so we shouldn't really be concerned."?

Reagardless of the specifics of who was affected, AIDS was a massive problem and Reagan, the most powerful figure in the free world, did absolutely nothing, which is nothing short of shameful.
 
:whatever: That's propaganda. Is he responsible for AIDS related deaths in other countries? Thousands of Americans did die due to HIV, but not millions. He did speak about AIDS in 1985, skepticism about pro-AIDS lobby that suggested that AIDs wasn't contagious.

More excuses.

No, not directly is he responsible, but Reagan allowed a vast number of people to die IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. He could've done something but didn't. Various staff members have confirmed his general attitude towards AIDS, which was sheer indifference and lack of remorse.

Fortunately, our recognition of fighting the horrible epidemic that is AIDS has improved greatfully (Bush's efforts in Africa are one of the few truly good things he did in his eight years), but it doesn't excuse Reagan's actions (or lack thereof).
 
They died in the slave trade, but it wasn't like their black skin "infected" them like a virus. I didn't say Reagan said that only gays could contract AIDS, but not a lot was done to put down that theory.

Stormin's argument was that Jefferson's disregard for blacks exacerbated their suffering in slave trade. Their suffering and dehumanization was far worse and not a result of their actions.

I like how you dismiss mistreatment of blacks due to racism, but portray AIDS, which at the time time was spread through aggressive, unsafe sexual activity and drug use as victimizations.
 
You're comparing two hundred years worth of social differences.

AIDS was an epidemic affecting all Americans, and Reagan did **** to stop it becasue he would have alienated his buddies in the Religious Right who thought it was a "gay disease" and that it was God's way of wiping out sinning sodomites. People in Reagan's own cabinet have since confirmed that he showed little personal regard for those suffering (even after watching his good friend Rock Hudson suffer slowly from the disease). I remember one staff member saying that he thought it would go away like the Measles.

Yes. AIDS was new and there were a lot of misconceptions about it, that doesn't make it right but I am not defending his actions either - in fact I am comparing it to those that owned slaves. If you are going to condemn Reagan for being insensitive about the plight of those with AIDS, then you have to condemn the bigots, the racists, etc.

I don't think Reagan should be ranked that high either, but for entirely different reasons.
 
Stormin's argument was that Jefferson's disregard for blacks exacerbated their suffering in slave trade. Their suffering and dehumanization was far worse and not a result of their actions.

I like how you dismiss mistreatment of blacks due to racism, but portray AIDS, which at the time time was spread through aggressive, unsafe sexual activity and drug use as victimizations.

I don't dismiss the treatment of slaves but I don't think the two can compare in that way. When Washington and Jefferson were President, slave trade was a cultural thing, and an extremely sensitive issue. It's not like in the 1980s half this country supported AIDS nor would be something that could lead to a civil war. Also I don't care how people contracted the virus under Reagan's term, it was something that still needed to be addressed much more
 
AIDs was first identified in 1981, when Reagan entered office....the disease and its level of contagion was not fully understood at the time. Reagan's views on it weren't that outside the mainstream. Reagan did turn around and provided some funding for its treatment at the federal level, but he did not make it a priority as some lobbyists who wanted to discuss safe sex and teach "safe" drug use in this country wanted to at the time.

And I bet if a similar situation occurred under Obama's watch, you would criticize him constantly for failing to act. You're basically justifying Reagan's bigotry towards homosexuals because he happens to be an icon of the conservative movement, and his efforts would be devalued if his image was tarnished.
 
The social attitudes were completely different in 1790 than from 1981. Jefferson and Washington were products of their time, not to mention that the slave trade was profitable, so while what they did was morally deficient, they at least had an economic excuse (not saying it was a good reason, but a reason). Plus, Washington and Jefferson were said to have treated their slaves significantly better than most slave owners at the time.

Reagan had none of these luxuries. He was simply ignorant, and his ignorance resulted in the loss of millions. It had nothing to do with the social attitudes of the time. AIDS was a disease just like cancer, and should've been treated as such. Instead, he let thousands lay there dying while he waged a war against an "evil empire" that was going to collapse regardless if we did something or not.
 
I don't dismiss the treatment of slaves but I don't think the two can compare in that way. When Washington and Jefferson were President, slave trade was a cultural thing, and an extremely sensitive issue. It's not like in the 1980s half this country supported AIDS nor would be something that could lead to a civil war. Also I don't care how people contracted the virus under Reagan's term, it was something that still needed to be addressed much more

This makes no sense...you justify slavery because it was a cultural thing, but condemn Reagan for responding to the mainstream attitude and view (whether fair or unfair) that most of the people affected by this disease caught in from their own actions. A significant portion of AIDS transfers were from drug use and high level of unprotected sex. While more could have been done to stop it, many conservatives at the time felt the movemement to compare the disease to other protected categories was an attempt to make certain sexual activity and drug use mainstream.
 
This makes no sense...you justify slavery because it was a cultural thing, but condemn Reagan for responding to the mainstream attitude and view (whether fair or unfair) that most of the people affected by this disease caught in from their own actions. A significant portion of AIDS transfers were from drug use and high level of unprotected sex. While more could have been done to stop it, many conservatives at the time felt the movemement to compare the disease to other protected categories was an attempt to make certain sexual activity and drug use mainstream.

I will never justify slavery, I'm merely saying why Washington and Jefferson and several other presidents didn't do anything on the matter.
 
This makes no sense...you justify slavery because it was a cultural thing, but condemn Reagan for responding to the mainstream attitude and view (whether fair or unfair) that most of the people affected by this disease caught in from their own actions. A significant portion of AIDS transfers were from drug use and high level of unprotected sex. While more could have been done to stop it, many conservatives at the time felt the movemement to compare the disease to other protected categories was an attempt to make certain sexual activity and drug use mainstream.

The stupidity of those people is mindboggling. Maybe if they had raised awareness on the issue of AIDS back then, and made discussion about those activities mainstream, maybe people would've stopped engaging in said activities, because they'd know that they could possibly get AIDS.
 
I will never justify slavery, I'm merely saying why Washington and Jefferson and several other presidents didn't do anything on the matter.

They could have done more but didn't. Jefferson could have given all his slaves freedom but he was in debt. He held slaves to maintain his luxurious lifestyle. He had affair with slave women who could not resist him. I'm not saying he didn't do some great things for this country, but don't try to whitewash this.
 
I will never justify slavery, I'm merely saying why Washington and Jefferson and several other presidents didn't do anything on the matter.

Which is the problem.

The argument that "well, it was the cultural thing to do" doesn't even apply to Jefferson since he found the practice wrong anyway.
 
The stupidity of those people is mindboggling. Maybe if they had raised awareness on the issue of AIDS back then, and made discussion about those activities mainstream, maybe people would've stopped engaging in said activities, because they'd know that they could possibly get AIDS.

And maybe if the Founding Fathers actually practices what they preached their would of been less slavery and discrimination in this country.
 
And I bet if a similar situation occurred under Obama's watch, you would criticize him constantly for failing to act. You're basically justifying Reagan's bigotry towards homosexuals because he happens to be an icon of the conservative movement, and his efforts would be devalued if his image was tarnished.

No, I can't think of an instance where I'd blame Obama for any epidemic.
 
Which is the problem.

The argument that "well, it was the cultural thing to do" doesn't even apply to Jefferson since he found the practice wrong anyway.

But didn't touch the matter because what the consequences could be, and we saw eventually what they were. Addressing AIDS never had the potential consequences that the slave trade did/had
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"