Reagan, Gays & AIDS

For those clinging to the fantasy that Reagan was a gay-hating bigot who was responsible for AIDS, here are some facts compiled by a long-time, opnely gay and openly-HIV+ writer:

<<Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon, wrote that Reagan was "repelled by the aggressive public crusades against homosexual life styles which became a staple of right wing politics in the late 1970s."

In 1978, Reagan put his career on the line opposing the Briggs Initiative in California that would have barred gay teachers from working in the public high school system. In an op-ed at the time, Reagan wrote:

"Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

That was 1978 - a very enlightened position at the time.>>

And, regarding AIDS:

<<The basic argument from the gay left is that Reagan was single-handedly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people by negligence. This, however, borders on loopy.

Reagan should indeed be faulted for not doing more to warn people of the dangers of infection early enough (Thatcher was far better). But the truth is that it was pretty obvious very early on that something dangerous was afoot as AIDS first surfaced.

Just read Larry Kramer at the time. Many people most at risk were aware - mostly too late, alas - that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing "And The Band Played On," to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself.

In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished. As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983.

Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms - not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after. Yes, the Congress was critical in this.

But by 1986, Reagan had endorsed a large prevention and research effort and declared in his budget message that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services." In September 1985, Reagan said:

"Including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."

But the sad truth is also that there was never going to be an easy answer to HIV in the Reagan years. Throwing even more money at research in those days would not have helped much. Anthony Fauci's NIH, goaded by heroes like Larry Kramer, was already pushing for focus and resources; FDA red tape was loosened considerably; and the painfully slow scientific process continued.

The fact that we got revolutionary drugs in trials by the early 1990s was itself an heroic scientific achievement - arguably the most miraculous progress in a medical emergency since the polio vaccine. Should Reagan have done more? Yes. Were people like Bill Bennett and Gary Bauer responsible for delaying a real prevention response because only gays were dying? You bet. But was Reagan ultimately responsible for so many tragic, early deaths? No. HIV was. Viruses happen. It's a blemish on his record, but not as profound as some, with understandable grief, want to make it out to be.>>

_________________________

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

For a more sophisticated analysis, see Michael Signorile writing in 1999:

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/800/800_signorile.asp

"Reagan did a disservice to every Republican presidential candidate that would follow him by encouraging this mad allegiance to the religious right, resulting 20 years later in a holy albatross that hangs around the necks of the Republican Party and our entire political system. "

There are those who believe that Goldwater was so naive that when he talked "state's rights," he didn't know that the people who voted for him were hearing "stop civil rights." And there are those who believe that Reagan was so naive that when he sought the support of Jerry Falwell and Anita Bryant, he didn't realize the significance of inviting bigots into the Big Tent. Those who believe Goldwater and Reagan weren't smart enough to figure out how they were being used, might be right.

RE: Reagan, Gays & AIDS

As Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon is not particularly objective but is instead at least somewhat biased toward his subject. Nevertheless, he has claimed that Reagan's response to AIDS was "halting and ineffective" -- a fact you did not mention.

Further, the great anger many in the gay community felt toward Reagan was not due to his failure to warn people of the risks; those were certainly becoming clearer as the years of the epidemic grew long. Rather, Reagan failed to address the AIDS epidemic as a national emergency, didn't even mention the word until 1987, headed an administration that refused to provide what many considered adequate funding for treatment and research and even refused to spend money that Congress did allocate.

Rather than providing leadership on an important national health issue, the Reagan administration dragged its feet wherever and whenever it could and most of us strongly believed that this was largely due to the fact that AIDS was perceived at the time to be a disease of gays, drug users and Haitains.

For a more balanced view of Reagan's record regarding AIDS, see the following article from The Encyclopedia of AIDS:

http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

BG

RE: Reagan, Gays & AIDS

How dare you try to defend Reagan on this point using that scumbucket barebacking apologist self loathing hack-and you do not even have the BALLS to identify him in your opening remark.

I was THERE,I know what I SAW,HEARD,and had to deal with.

You really are a bootlicking little troll-stop it,you are making a fool of yourself.

RE: Reagan, Gays & AIDS

>As Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon is not particularly

>objective but is instead at least somewhat biased toward his

>subject. Nevertheless, he has claimed that Reagan's response

>to AIDS was "halting and ineffective" -- a fact you did not

>mention.

Facts? Why would Dougie deal with facts when the blatherings of his hero, Ann the Man Coulter are so much better for him to regurgitate. Doug says he is not a Repiglican, but when it smells like one and squeals like one......

He is no better than those Stepford Repiglicans, the Log Cabineers, who grovel and beg for crumbs from their Repiglican masters. Pathetic.

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>Further, the great anger many in the gay community felt toward

>Reagan was not due to his failure to warn people of the risks;

>those were certainly becoming clearer as the years of the

>epidemic grew long.

It's been more than 25 years since Reagan was President and gay men are still cumming in each other's asses and giving each other AIDS at astonishing rates. Do you think that people who do that bear any responsibility for this epidemic, or is it more fun to blame it on dead politicians you hate?

And do you want to talk about having blood on your hands? In the early 1980's, public health officials in New York and San Fransisco, among other places, and activists like Larry Karmer, tried to shut down bathhouses and urge gay men not to run around promiscuously fucking everything they found, because even then, before HIV had been identified, it was obvious that this was transmitting the disease.

But the Gay Left Commandants in America's Gay Ghettos vigorously opposed these measures, screetching that it impeded their sexual liberation and was just a right-wing effort to impose sexual morality on gay men. The same people who today call Andrew Sullivan "a self-loathing sicko" were calling Larry Krarmer the same thing for urging gay men to restrain themselves in the face of this disease. In light of the blood that those Gay Leftists have on their hands, earning their enmity should be a great source of pride for anyone. None of this is in dispute; it's all documented in widely embraced sources, including gay SF and HIV+ Journalist Randy Shilts' And the Band Played On. So nobody with any intellectual honesty would claim that warnings by Ronald Reagan about sexual promiscuity would have been heeded by the batthouse homos in SF, NYC and elsewhere - even gay people like Larry Karmer were excoriated for issuing similar warnings.

Finally, I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying when you speak about this issue. You repeated the lie in your post that Reagan didn't mention the word "AIDS" until 1987 even though I posted his quote from his 1985 budget speech in which he said that AIDS was the top priority of HHS. Additionally, it doesn't matter what you think of Reagan's biographer; the fact that Reagan publicly opposed the anti-gay Briggs Initiative in 1978 is simply a matter of historical fact. Just because you want desperately to cling to a myth doesn't entitle you to blind yourself or others to indisputable facts.

Reagan was our daddy. He didn't love us enough. So it's all his fault. Do gay liberals ever outgrow adolescent anger at their father?

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp; AIDS

I didn't know the supermarket check-out stands near the trailer parks in outer Lynchburg (or is it Wheeling?) sold the collected works of Charles Socarides so that Dougie could happily regurgitate them!

And based on Dougie's ravings, I begin to wonder if

1) He's ever been to a gay bathhouse;

2) He's ever hired an escort; and

3) If he's ever had sex. . .

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>I didn't know the supermarket check-out stands near the

>trailer parks in outer Lynchburg (or is it Wheeling?) sold the

>collected works of Charles Socarides so that Dougie could

>happily regurgitate them!

How sad that you don't know who Randy Shilts or Larry Kramer are or what they said and did - and sadder still that you think that the notion that gay liberal men in gay ghettos bear some responsibility for AIDS due to their conduct and sickening IDEOLOGICAL opposition to Larry Karmer's and others' warnings in the early 1980s, is a fantasy of the right-wing. Your brain is truly dead - closed forever to anything but the self-serving myths to which you pathetically cling.

You're exactly the kind of person I'm talking about - scoffing at the notion that gay people should exercise self-discipline and sexual restraint in order to save their lives - and instead trying to politicize the epidemic by blaming it on your political enemies. Even today, as gay men - with full knowledge of the risks -continue to take cum in their ass and contract HIV at tragic rates, morally depraved people like you scoff at the notion that gay people should take responsibility for themselves and you dismiss the notion of sexual restraint as the by-product of Christian moralizing. That is really sick.

________________________________________

FROM: A Virus Invades The Mind

— Dr Harry Meyer, Former Director, National Biologics Laboratory:

"As Randy Shilts describes in And the Band Played On, the gay press denounced the idea of a "gay plague" as yet another bout of self-hatred among gay men, in league with heterosexual disgust with the gay lifestyle. The battleline was drawn at bathhouses. The "alarmists" wanted them promptly closed. Closure would slow transmission of the infectious agent while having the educative effect of alerting gay men to epidemic danger. Yet bathhouses were a symbol of gay liberation, and the bathhouses experience was interwoven with gay consciousness. To allow public health officers to close the bathhousess was to endure a mighty defeat to gay power. The alternative course-that the gay community should take the initiative in their closure-would be a public retreat from gay liberation. Three years of struggle passed before bathhousess were closed. In that period gay consciousness reacquired inhibitions that had been discarded."

_________________________

FROM: Liberal blog Where's the Smoke http://www.wheretheressmoke.net/2002/12/world_aids_day_.html

"Nonetheless, ever since I got to know my friend Brad and the Link and Think project, I try, on this day, to clear a shelf in my heart for the memory of Randy Shilts Mr. Shilts was a national correspondant for the San Francisco Chronicle and the author of the book And the Band Played On, widely credited for catapulting AIDS into the consciousness of mainstream America. Shilts won several awards for the depth and wisdom of his reporting. He was finishing his third book, Conduct Uncoming, a study of gays in the military, when he succumbed to AIDS in February of 1994. He was 42 years old.

Although Shilts was largely a shy, private man, he made several foes in both the gay press and activist community. He chastised his fellow gay journalists for cheerleading instead of reporting and insisted on calling himself "a reporter who happens to be gay" instead of the other way around. Critics also mocked his defensive stance on the validity of his research, claiming rightly that Randy Shilts was human and made mistakes too, something Shilts himself had a difficult time admiting. Most incindiary of all, Shilts came out in favor of the city of San Francisco shutting down gay bath houses in the 1980's as a public health measure to stop the spread of AIDS and he himself kept his own infection quiet. Gay activists accused him of shaming his own."

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

""We brought AIDS upon ourselves by a way of living that welcomed it."

-- Gay and HIV+ hero Larry Kramer, Founder of GMHC and ACT-UP, who did more than any single human being to trigger effective treatments for AIDS and who was attacked mercilessly by the Gay Left as a "self-loathing fag" in the early 1980s for urging the closing of batthouses and restraint on sexualy promiscuity, The Advocate, May 27, 1997.

But it's so much nicer and feels so much better to blame Ronald Reagan.

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>Finally, I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying when you

>speak about this issue. You repeated the lie in your post

>that Reagan didn't mention the word "AIDS" until 1987 even

>though I posted his quote from his 1985 budget speech in which

>he said that AIDS was the top priority of HHS.

Yes, we all know about "the budget speech" that every president makes. Or maybe you're thinking about the budget message that some OMB bureaucrat writes up when the President's printed budget request is sent to Congress. It probably said something about AIDS in 1985, but then it also probably said something about alpaca subsidies and foreign aid for Cameroun.

The 1987 date probably IS incorrect, though. The Washington Post reports this morning on Page One:

>>And the administration showed indifference to an emerging AIDS crisis in the early 1980s. By the time Reagan delivered his first speech on the epidemic in May 1988 -- about eight months before he left office -- the disease had been diagnosed in more than 36,000 Americans, and 20,849 had died.<<

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>The 1987 date probably IS incorrect, though. The Washington

>Post reports this morning on Page One:

>

>>>And the administration showed indifference to an emerging

>AIDS crisis in the early 1980s. By the time Reagan delivered

>his first speech on the epidemic in May 1988 -- about eight

>months before he left office -- the disease had been diagnosed

>in more than 36,000 Americans, and 20,849 had died.<<

If you don't know and can't comprehend the difference between mentioning AIDS and delivering a speech on it, what possible reason would anyone have to think that your brain works above the level of clinical retardation?

Reagan also discussed AIDS in a September 17, 1985 news conference:

<<The President. I have been supporting it for more than 4 years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 years, and including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.>>

Those words came out of his mouth in 1985 (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/91785c.htm). Can you now stop lying and falsely claiming that he didn't mention AIDS until 1987 or 1988?

RE: Self-Hatred

As for Larry Kramer and Randy Shilts, they may not have been self-hating (in the classic kind of way) but they were certainly judgemental about other gay men's lives, and they did indeed contribute to closing down the bath houses in many cities, for which I will never forgive them.

Closing the bath houses in my opinion condemned a lot of men to catching AIDS and dying an early death. There is no basis, whatsoever, for assuming that the bath houses were responsible for propagating AIDS. There was (and is) a great deal of evidence that the bath houses were extremely effective institutions for teaching gay men (and many closeted so-called "straights" who just happened to like sex with other men) about STDs and how to prevent them. In cities like N.Y., L.A. and San Francisco the bath houses were actively involved in very effective education and prevention campaigns where men who might not otherwise have contact with other parts of the gay community (like bars and clubs) could get tested for STDs, learn how to avoid them, and get treatment, all in a safe, non-threatening environment. In cities where the baths weren't closed, such education and prevention activities continued into the age of AIDS, and the lives and health of countless men were undoubtedly saved as a result. In cities were the baths were closed, like San Francisco, men who would otherwise have frequented the bath houses were forced back into the parks, toilets and sex clubs where there was little or no focus on education and prevention.

So yes, I continue to be angry with Kramer, Shilts and their ilk. Their self-righteousness and their discomfort with sex other than the way THEY practiced it condemned a lot of men to die.

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>If you don't know and can't comprehend the difference between

>mentioning AIDS and delivering a speech on it, what possible

>reason would anyone have to think that your brain works above

>the level of clinical retardation?

You're the one who wrote:

>>I posted his quote from his 1985 budget speech <<

So, tell us where to find the budget speech in the archives where you found one answer to a question at a 1985 press conference. Or are you saying that there's no difference between a speech and a press conference?

RE: Self-Hatred

"Closing the bath houses in my opinion condemned a lot of men to catching AIDS and dying an early death."

This has got to be the most ludicrous statement about AIDS infection, I have ever encountered!

The ONLY thing that condemned a lot of men to catching AIDS and continues to do so to this day, is their very own acts of engaging in unsafe sexual practices. Pure and simple - don't do it! Whether that is in a bathroom, a park, a sex club or a bathhouse.

Lots of bars with back room sex areas, also distributed AIDS information as well as free condoms and the fact that some bathhouses did the same, certainly doesn't mean that bathhouses were not breeding grounds for AIDS infection as well as many other infections both stds and other non-sexual infections.

Since when does the fact that sex clubs are also grounds of unsafe sexual practices, deny the fact that bathhouses do the same?

RE: Self-Hatred

>This has got to be the most ludicrous statement about AIDS

>infection, I have ever encountered!

Maybe, but it's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Your statement is another glimpse into your heartless and judgemental attitude about other gays. The fact is, at the time the bulk of the "first generation" of AIDS victims became infected, nobody even knew it existed so there was nothing to protect oneself against. The thousands of men who died weren't all suicidal idiots. If they had known, they would have protected themselves. People in the late 70s and early 80s did know about other STDs, and much of what they learned they got at the bath houses, which had extensive and active education and prevention efforts, usually in conjunction with the local public health authorities. The bath houses catered to a lot of men (like married men) who wouldn't have come into contact with information about STDs, AIDS or how to prevent them in any other way, because these were the only venues they frequented. They weren't otherwise involved in the gay community. And statistics showed that the rate of STDs dropped in communities where there were such active prevention and outreach efforts.

Yes, some sex clubs and bars with back rooms also participated in education and prevention activities, but many (perhaps most) didn't. So they weren't as effective a means of reaching men at risk. As for the bath houses, they certainly provided a venue for having sex, but I don't think there's any evidence to show that more unsafe sex happened in bath houses than in any other venues. In cities where the bath houses remained open and continued serving as vehicles for education and prevention, there's no evidence that the rate of HIV infection was higher than in cities that had closed their bath houses. In fact, I suspect it's just the opposite.

There was an awful lot of twisted puritanism and judgemental-ism (if that's a word) among the "close the bath houses" crowd, who all had a "we know what's best for you" attitude far too reminiscent of the evangelical right. Or even of a couple of regular posters on this board! And I don't forgive them for what they did.

By the way, I've been a devotee of "promiscuous" bath house and other sex in semi-public places for as long as I've been out (more than 40 years now). Neither I nor any of my other like-minded friends who always played safe has become HIV positive. So it wasn't and isn't the bath houses that are responsible for the spread of AIDS. It was unsafe sex practices (one of the few accurate points in VaHawk's posting). The problem is that unsafe sex occurs every bit as much, if not more, in the privacy of people's bedrooms as it does in the baths, clubs and back rooms. But it's a lot harder to reach and teach people in that setting than in the other places.

RE: Self-Hatred

>Maybe, but it's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Your

>statement is another glimpse into your heartless and

>judgemental attitude about other gays.

Yeah, stick to your opinion, as that is your right, but stick to it because of facts, and not because bathhouse sex, is your preference! I'm so heartless and judgemental!? LMFAO!, as your "judgemental opinion/conviction of me" is about the FARTHEST thing from the reality that is me!

>The fact is, at the

>time the bulk of the "first generation" of AIDS victims became

>infected, nobody even knew it existed so there was nothing to

>protect oneself against. The thousands of men who died

>weren't all suicidal idiots. If they had known, they would

>have protected themselves. People in the late 70s and early

>80s did know about other STDs, and much of what they learned

>they got at the bath houses, which had extensive and active

>education and prevention efforts, usually in conjunction with

>the local public health authorities.

Jesus Christ, you really aren't that naive are you???????? Just like you, I WAS THERE! And where did I ever state that ANYONE was a suicidal idiot??????

SORRY to intrude upon your preferred method of sexual encounters, via the bathhouse scene, but NO WAY that you can deny that they were the sluttiest, filthiest breeding grounds of stds, including AIDS in the early to mid-80's! Try that bullshit on someone who wasn't there!!!!

>The bath houses catered

>to a lot of men (like married men) who wouldn't have come into

>contact with information about STDs, AIDS or how to prevent

>them in any other way, because these were the only venues they

>frequented. They weren't otherwise involved in the gay

>community.

That is the funniest bullshit, I have EVER heard! I'm not trying to make fun of you, as OBVIOUSLY, you have probably spent your entire gay life interacting with other men, ONLY in the disease breeding grounds of the bathhouses. From my own experiences, I feel safe in stating that A LOT of men (str8, bi, married, or whatever stupid label that they wish to self-apply) can be found in many environments, and that MANY of them HAVE NEVER gone to a gay bathhouse!

Really, I wonder if you have EVER had any male to male experiences, gay, bi, or otherwise, that did not involve a bathhouse! If not, then there isn't anything wrong with that, but, in turn, you shouldn't rail against those who have experienced a variety of venues!

>

>There was an awful lot of twisted puritanism and

>judgemental-ism (if that's a word) among the "close the bath

>houses" crowd, who all had a "we know what's best for you"

>attitude far too reminiscent of the evangelical right. Or

>even of a couple of regular posters on this board! And I

>don't forgive them for what they did.

Why is stating the obvious fact that the promiscuous, unprotected, multi-partnered sexual encounters that are so PREVALENT in bathhouses, are breeding grounds for HIV, other STDs and even athlete's foot and other funguses, in any way, judgemental????

>By the way, I've been a devotee of "promiscuous" bath house

>and other sex in semi-public places for as long as I've been

>out (more than 40 years now). Neither I nor any of my other

>like-minded friends who always played safe has become HIV

>positive. So it wasn't and isn't the bath houses that are

>responsible for the spread of AIDS. It was unsafe sex

>practices (one of the few accurate points in VaHawk's

>posting).

So why are you disputing me, as it SEEMS that you got the gist of my post?

>The problem is that unsafe sex occurs every bit as

>much, if not more, in the privacy of people's bedrooms as it

>does in the baths, clubs and back rooms. But it's a lot

>harder to reach and teach people in that setting than in the

>other places.

Right, as many clubs, bars, baths, etc. had people distributing sex education literature, free condoms, and personal counseling way back then. It has always been a peeve of mine, that such educational campaigns have gone by the wayside, and that such lack of effort, is one of the main reasons that HIV infection is on the upswing!

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

Thanks Doug- I have become quite disturbed of the Reagan bashing being displated on this board as of late. Your post is quite welcome. Despite all the negative things that have been said here - I still think Ronald Reagan was our greatest president ever.

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>Thanks Doug- I have become quite disturbed of the Reagan

>bashing being displated on this board as of late. Your post is

>quite welcome. Despite all the negative things that have been

>said here - I still think Ronald Reagan was our greatest

>president ever.

Skrubber must have never heard of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan is a midget in comparison to some of the giants who have been president.

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; AIDS

Do you also consider Hitler,Mussolini,and Pinochet among the greatest leaders in history also?

Hitler cured the unemployment and inflation problems in Germany

Mussolini brought order back to the infrasture of Italy

Pinochet created an enviroment where industry could flourish.

Just Like Reagan-JUST LIKE REAGAN.

RE: Reagan, Gays &amp;amp;amp; AIDS

>It's been more than 25 years since Reagan was President and

>gay men are still cumming in each other's asses and giving

>each other AIDS at astonishing rates. Do you think that

>people who do that bear any responsibility for this epidemic,

>or is it more fun to blame it on dead politicians you hate?

You seem to be having trouble understanding a point that is really quite simple. No one on this board has blamed Reagan for creating the AIDS epidemic, so there's no need to lie and imply that anyone here did. But Reagan was the leader of the nation when the epidemic first came to the attention of the public. He had control of the nation's largest public health agencies at the time, and even a biographer who presents a generally positive picture of his career acknowledges that his response to the problem was "ineffective." That has nothing to do with what any other official did or failed to do; whether officials in New York or elsewhere did all they could or not, it doesn't absolve Reagan from failing in his responsibility.

Plenty of people who worked in the Reagan White House are still around, and a number of them, including Buchanan and Bauer, have acknowledged in recent interviews that they advised Reagan to be extremely cautious about becoming identified with a disease that seemed to affect exactly the sort of people whom conservatives consider the dregs of society. It was wrong for them to give such advice and wrong for Reagan to take it. All of those involved should accept responsibility for that.

Learn to count

Dougie, Dougie, Dougie, your ability to count is just as faulty as your logic…

>It's been more than 25 years since Reagan was President and

>gay men are still cumming in each other's asses and giving

Reagan left office in 1989. It is 2004. That is 15 years. Bring back your persona of F3 and critiquing escort reviews. Keep clear of politics since you usually get the facts wrong.:o