Bush supporters who are gay?

What do people think of Bush?


  • Total voters
    52

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I know this thread is not for me (100% straight girl); but I just had to say that Log Cabin Republicans are as perplexing to me as Black Republicans. I consider them both to be misguided sell-outs.



njqt466 ducks and takes cover as the ICBM's start to fly! :tongue: :mad: :redface:


You can be Black and Republican or Gay and Republican an not be a sell-out. Some people are Republicans because there family is, and some like Nancy and Ronald Reagan's kids are Democrats.
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
and will go down with the ranks of Jimmy Carter. Libby has been convicted, and wolfowitz lost it all with the bank scandal. Cheney on the other hand has managed to stay hidden enough to take the blunt of the mistakes.

I like Jimmy Carter. I think he is a good man with a good heart. You don't see anyone else buildng homes for the homeless. I was a kid when he was in office so I don't know his whole history.

He also did alot of work to free the hostages but Reagan (who made a deal with the scumbags) took the credit.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
You can be Black and Republican or Gay and Republican an not be a sell-out. Some people are Republicans because there family is, and some like Nancy and Ronald Reagan's kids are Democrats.
One of the very worst reasons EVER to support any political party.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
In a similar way it wasnt right then for former President Clinton to put in the don't ask don't tell garbage. Clinton was at least if not more anti-gay than Bush and proved it when he allowed that to go through. With George Bush at least he is honest enough to tell us what he believes he has not hidden in some twisted writings so he can look good.

Well, that may or may not make Bush more honest, but hardly more pro-gay. I don't believe that Clinton was more anti-gay than Bush.
Don't ask, don't tell was disappointing, but the political reality was that Clinton wasn't going to get more than that. There was too much opposition, not just among much of the population, but among the military. That doesn't mean Clinton's intentions weren't good, and absolutely pro-gay. (And yes, yes ... I know he tended to fold his hand too easily much of the time, but sometimes circumstances compel that.)
I would be surprised if Bush doesn't think that all or virtually all gays will burn eternally. I'm certain Clinton holds no such view.

How about that he has the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history, and has managed to sustain it longer than any president has sustained his lowest score? By that reasonably objective standard he is absolutely the worst.

Well, ff, since I think Bush is dreadful, I am tempted to buy this. But I can't. You could be a wonderful president, one whom future historians would come to see as outstanding, and still be in the dumpster in the terms you cite.

Bush is a lame duck president and will go down with the ranks of Jimmy Carter.

Unresonant as Carter may have been as a president, I can't believe, in 30 years time, he will compete with Bush as one of the supreme arseholes to ever sit in the Oval Office.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Or the fact that most other presidents understood that executive orders are merely "serving suggestions" and not laws, but this president is working under the impression that he can legislate by EO? No other president in history, that I'm aware of, had less respect for the US Constitution... and no other has worked so hard to circumvent the Constitution by use of secret laws, secret courts, secret trials, and secret meetings.
Amen

Well, ff, since I think Bush is dreadful, I am tempted to buy this. But I can't. You could be a wonderful president, one whom future historians would come to see as outstanding, and still be in the dumpster in the terms you cite.
I guess, citing Truman, there could be something to that, but it is truly hard for me to see how a President that works long-term against the will of the people (because he is in his second term and he can) would ever come to be heralded by historians as a success. I will think on it, however, out of respect for you. When an argument is unconvincing in your mind, it usually has a big hole in it. (Not that there is anything wrong with big holes...:rolleyes: )
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Don't ask, don't tell was disappointing, but the political reality was that Clinton wasn't going to get more than that. There was too much opposition, not just among much of the population, but among the military. That doesn't mean Clinton's intentions weren't good, and absolutely pro-gay.
Trust me, SR, DADT doesn't come anywhere near DOMA in legislated discrimination. And from what I understand, he didn't so much as threaten a veto, let alone sign one. The "Defense of Marriage Act", which he signed into law, basically gave states the right to ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution as far as it may relate to gay rights.

(For those not familiar with Full Faith and Credit, here's the Wikipedia entry.)
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Idiot Bush is against stem cell reseach.
Bush thinks a fertilized egg is life.
I am almost in favor of killing newborns in favor of stem cell reseach.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I guess, citing Truman, there could be something to that, but it is truly hard for me to see how a President that works long-term against the will of the people (because he is in his second term and he can) would ever come to be heralded by historians as a success. I will think on it, however, out of respect for you. When an argument is unconvincing in your mind, it usually has a big hole in it.

Oh, but ff, I absolutely agree. But my post, if I can dig myself out from under my senescence for a moment, strictly referred to your reference to Bush's basement-level poll support. That's all I was referencing.

(Not that there is anything wrong with big holes...:rolleyes: )

:biggrin1: :biggrin1:
(Though the best fun comes when they don't begin that way.)

Trust me, SR, DADT doesn't come anywhere near DOMA in legislated discrimination. And from what I understand, he didn't so much as threaten a veto, let alone sign one. The "Defense of Marriage Act", which he signed into law, basically gave states the right to ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution as far as it may relate to gay rights.

I will take your word that he wussed out.
My original post addressed someone's assertion that Clinton was more anti-gay than Bush, which I decided to interpret in personal terms. And I don't believe that Clinton, in personal terms, is anti-gay at all, but I would be surprised if Bush isn't. (I don't really know though ... just extrapolating from everything one hears about his religious beliefs.)
The poster seemed to suggest that DADT was proof of Clinton's anti-gay stance; and I disagreed.
DOMA is a new element in the equation, which I don't know much about.
Clinton didn't even threaten a veto.
Would such a threat from him have carried weight?
Or was the vote in favor already great enough to overcome a veto, if a second vote, following his veto, had been required?
I will trust you, DC.
Because you are smart and love the truth.:cool:
And because you are an informed American.
But tell this Canadian a bit more.
200 words.
When you can.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
One of the very worst reasons EVER to support any political party.
True, but a very common occurrence nonetheless. :redface:

You can be Black and Republican or Gay and Republican an not be a sell-out.*snip*
We shall have to agree to disagree on this one, mem0101. I only know one LCR and when he told me he had joined the Young Republicans club at college we had a huge fight and didnt speak for a year. :redface:
 

B_ScaredLittleBoy

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Posts
3,235
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence."

Haha! It scares me that such a dim witted, unqualified man is in such a position of power. His Bushisms are funny to read but then you realise he is the President of the United States :eek:

I just find him laughable and the mind boggles how he could be elected twice. Just because of religion?

"And my concern, David, is several."
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Oh, but ff, I absolutely agree. But my post, if I can dig myself out from under my senescence for a moment, strictly referred to your reference to Bush's basement-level poll support. That's all I was referencing.
And I, in turn, was just thinking out loud that there might be a reason for low support. (But we already know that.)

(Though the best fun comes when they don't begin that way.)
Are you trying to scare away my business???
 

whatireallywant

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
3,535
Media
0
Likes
31
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
One of the very worst reasons EVER to support any political party.

I don't normally express my political views here, but right now I'm feeling fairly safe in doing so. (I hate to argue and I don't like it when people give me a hard time over my views, so I usually just keep quiet about it).

I come from an entire family of Religious Right Republicans (although my parents are more moderate and often even vote Democrat these days). Some members of my extended family even supported candidates like David Duke! :eek:

And, I am a very leftist Democrat (Kucinich supporter here!), with some Green Party leanings as well. I don't see all that much difference between Kucinich and the Green Party candidates, so I like that.

Anyway, my views are VERY different from those of most of my relatives - that's basically what I'm saying here.
 

deepwader

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Posts
216
Media
4
Likes
48
Points
248
Age
56
Location
Cumbria (England)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
George Bush may not be numbered amongst the United States' greatest Presidents but he is better than his lying, perjuring predecessor and - the only really important point here - better than either of the opponents whom he defeated. The choice was never between Bush and some heraclean model of intellect and principle - the alternatives realistically on offer were Gore and Kerry, either of whom would have beggared the nation's economy and subordinated its interests to those of the so-called "United Nations"


I am continually astonished that so many gay men are prepared to allow their sexual preferences to rule their attitude to politics and politicians. The tail is surely wagging the dog. There is more to a President than his views on gay marriage: we are talking about the most powerful office on earth. Would be okay to have an out and out socialist President provided that he endorsed gay rights? It's okay, is it, that your partner loses his job, and your taxes rise to the point where you can't afford to keep that nice home you bought together, provided that you can get a piece of paper from the government that says you are "married"? Fine, then: Obama for President!

I used to point out to my gay friends who hated Margaret Thatcher as much as I supported her, that a penny off the rate of income tax did more to increase the personal freedom of an employed gay man, than a year off the unequal legal age of consent which had not in fact been enforced for twenty years. The way the government impinges on our lives most seriously is by taking our money and spending it. A liberal government is a government that grabs less of our cash.

Most important of all: Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and the successful prosecution of the war is vital to the defence of western liberal society, particularly the rights of gays and women, against Islamic fascism. The Islamists are watching to see if we flinch in Iraq and if we do, I fear for our future. I am grateful to every US soldier fighting that war and all those who are supporting them.
 

Chuck64

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Posts
1,578
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
508
Location
Rural Texas
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
To be perfectly honest deepwader, if you judge an administration based on their record of lies and perjury, the Bush administration is well on the way to holding the world record!

I agree with you 100% about being a single-issue voter. It's not productive.

However, you can't sit there and tell me that Iraq was justified. There are reports that Iraq was 2nd on the list of about 9 countries that the Bush administration intended to overthrow. There were no WMDs. Iraq was not a terrorist safehold until WE DESTABILIZED the country. Iran and North Korea weren't nearly as problematic for us before Bush declared them part of his axis of evil. Those are just his foreign policy failures.
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
George Bush may not be numbered amongst the United States' greatest Presidents but he is better than his lying, perjuring predecessor and - the only really important point here - better than either of the opponents whom he defeated. The choice was never between Bush and some heraclean model of intellect and principle - the alternatives realistically on offer were Gore and Kerry, either of whom would have beggared the nation's economy and subordinated its interests to those of the so-called "United Nations"

Clinton was a much better President.
Bush or Kerry would have been a much better President.
Bush is Cheney's puppet. Bush realizes that he is not smart enough to be President. Bush just wants to go on vacation and not hear about the bad news.

I am continually astonished that so many gay men are prepared to allow their sexual preferences to rule their attitude to politics and politicians.

72% of Americans are NOT GAY. If he has a 28% approval rating that means his Gay approval rating is 2.8% (but probably less)

Most important of all: Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and the successful prosecution of the war is vital to the defence of western liberal society, particularly the rights of gays and women, against Islamic fascism. The Islamists are watching to see if we flinch in Iraq and if we do, I fear for our future. I am grateful to every US soldier fighting that war and all those who are supporting them.

Bush was wrong to go into Iraq. It was all based on lies. How hard do you think the Bush admin. looked for WMD's?

I am grateful to every soldier there too, and support them.

An opinion is like an asshole, eyerone has one.

You are entitled to yours.

You are in bondage to the Dollar bill.
 

MuscleBound

Just Browsing
Joined
May 22, 2007
Posts
37
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
Mississippi, USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I hate to say it but I believe Bush will not only be viewed as a terrible President while in office, but also by history.

Currently American voters are frustrated by our lack of success in many areas. Most pronoucedly in the rise in cost of basic goods and the failure of the military to successfully prosecute the war in Iraq.

From a historical prospective, W will be viewed as a castestropic failure. He had complete support from the American public to go to war in Iraq. He could have poured all the will and might of the country into the battle and successfully installed a puppet govenment in a very short period of time. Instead his administration vastly under estimated the challenges involved. And by the time they realized their mistakes, the public support was gone. Most shocking is that the Reps had to take a major defeat in the mid-term elections, before W would admit he had a problem. The problems were there very early and W's gov't instead read their own press.

He had an opportunity for greatness, and blew it. I honestly believe that he listened to George Sr and now he is paying the price for it.

The man had some good intentions. $15 billion for treatment of AIDS in Africa for example. Refunds to all tax payers from the federal treasury. However he created an inner circle that sank further and further into group-think and arrogance.

The mistakes domestically are essentially the same, and caused by the same administrative problems. Out of touch and believing they could do anything because they "had been so popular" following 911.

I certainly agree that W is proof that you do not have to be the best candidate to get elected President of the USA, you just have to be the best choice of the two major parties. Bozo, and Bart Simpson could have beaten Gore and Kerry. And really he didn't even beat Gore, so there you go.