Huh? Like cage-match fought, or just didn't really push hard at first for AIDS research.

Does the Almighty cast you into Hell for that!

And here I thought that AIDS was god's way of opposing homosexual marriage.

Just say no - to a Nancy Reagan thread.

Honestly, where do you get that from?

A more objective view from PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/nancy-re...eadline-9.html

Tell ya what, go ask any serious AIDS advocate and get back to me. You haven't seen the massive backlash after Hillary tried to portray Nancy as someone who advanced the cause???

"Objective"

I wouldn't expect to get a fair answer from any advocate of any position on any subject. Maybe I'm nuts, though.

That is why I posted the PBS link... they aren't an apparatchik of the RNC.

Remember what you wrote:

Where is the evidence, "She fought pretty hard against AIDS patients"? Any factual basis or did you just make it up or even better yet, did you get it from an "advocate"?

Certainly a more objective analysis than the unsubstantiated tripe you posted here.

Even Hil agrees and had to backtrack.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/s...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

How ironic using Hildawg as an objective source :-)

Especially after she just took a beating from the nutter left (who already mistrusts her for being late to the party) for speaking well of Mrs Reagan.

You can't have it both ways she either is a moron and doesn't know the difference between AIDS and Alzheimer's, is mentally incompetent due to age/injury or she is a natural born liar.

How am I trying to "have it both ways"???

Assuming you aren't being ironic and are using Hil as an objective source as "proof" Mrs Reagan actively fought against AIDS research, you can only agree with one of 3 propositions:

1... She doesn't know the difference between AIDS and Alzheimer's

2... Is so mentally deficient she doesn't remember what she said or

3... Is a liar who will say anything not to annoy any part of her voters

Remember what she originally said:

Here's what she actually said on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_pcYyCejk


Clearly she knew they were discussing AIDS and not Alzheimer's.

Then when the poop hit the proverbial fan.... she brought the old "I misspoke" defense out of the bullpen. She came with this incredibly predictable weak sauce:

So.... which of the 3 choices is it. Anyone with a scintilla of objectivity has to believe she is lying through her teeth covering her ass when the nutters went nuts hearing her statement.

She wasn't confused... she just lied to cover her ass.

What the **** are you even talking about? Whether she knew they were discussing AIDS or not is irrelevant. She knows and freely admits the Regans obstructed work on AIDS research which is all that matters for this thread.

R.I.P. Good Time Nancy

First of all this discussion is about the statement YOU made saying:

So no goal post shifting like you do in the above paragraph switching SHE (Mrs Reagan who you attacked originally) for THE REAGANS (Mrs AND Presidrent Reagan). Thank you.

Of course it is relevant "whether Hil knew they were discussing AIDS". Her entire excuse was I thought they were discussing Alzheimer's, not AIDS which the video clearly proves is a complete lie. She didn't misspeak anything.... she lied to genuflect the hard left who was out of its mind because she had a moment of weakness and told the truth.

I am still waiting for the evidence supporting your stated premise that "She (Mrs. Reagan) fought hard against AIDS."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...57885968068322

Cite please!

Hillary's response doesn't seem hard to understand. She knew they were discussing AIDS. She initially praised Nancy for supporting AIDS research and then changed her mind and backtracked because she was informed that many in her party and in the AIDS movement felt the Reagans' response to AIDS epidemic was much later than it should have been because the people who were most affected by AIDS were not people who the Reagans wanted to be associated with politically.

Her backtrack was weak because she wanted to not offend the people already upset and also not offend the many Reagan fanatics by saying anything critical about Nancy.

The most likely way to interpret is that she put out the statement about Nancy because she felt as a national political figure she needed to publicly acknowledge her passing, but really doesn't give a **** about Nancy or about her legacy of AIDS research and just wants to get back to the things she is actually concerned about.

somehow all of that seems to have you worked up but it is the type of thing that happens all the time in politics

Does anyone on the entire left have a single tangible fact to support the notion Mrs Reagan "She fought pretty hard against AIDS patients". I don't mean vouching from activists. The woman was First Lady for 8 years and there are God knows how many taped statements or interviews and not a single bit of evidence, ehh?

Is this the way Mrs Clinton decides things? Doesn't scour sources for facts but immediately folds like a cheap suit when she is "informed" by advocates without facts.

LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL

No she probably doesn't scour sources for facts when putting out a tweet in honor of a deceased first lady. This isn't a matter of policy. She probably just tried to say something classy she thought would make people feel good, and ended up unintentionally offending other people so she backtracked.