Bush supporters who are gay?

What do people think of Bush?


  • Total voters
    52

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
"Reasonably objective Standard?" A poll? Shortly after 9/11 his approval rating was in the 80's. Was he then one of our greatest presidents?
Had he persued policies that sustained that, I would have had to say yes. My argument, however, is about his rating over time. Even spotting him the very high marks from post 9/11 he now has the lowest average rating of any two term president in modern history.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Haha! It scares me that such a dim witted, unqualified man is in such a position of power.
Don't misunderestimate him, SLB. He's not as dim-witted as he appears.
Anyway, my views are VERY different from those of most of my relatives - that's basically what I'm saying here.
Exactly my point, WIRW. At least it's your views, not those that somebody told you to have.
George Bush may not be numbered amongst the United States' greatest Presidents but he is better than his lying, perjuring predecessor
That is so rich. Of course, WJC couldn't open his eyes without lying, and GWB has told not one single lie in his life, right?
I am continually astonished that so many gay men are prepared to allow their sexual preferences to rule their attitude to politics and politicians.
It's the party, not the office, that matters in that regard. I am definitely not a single-issue voter (as are so many republicans). Actually, clarity and integrity rule my attitude toward politics and politicians. The rest will follow.
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"?
That's satire, right? As a party, republicans support discrimination against gays, and my taxes right now are higher than they every have been.
A liberal government is a government that grabs less of our cash.
Funny thing, that. It used to be that the conservative government grabbed less of our cash; now it's done "a 180".
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.
I disagree. I think there are other countries that have been much more of a threat to the western world, but Iraq was a convenient target, and an easy diversionary tactic. It just wasn't as easy a target as the Bush administration wanted us to believe.
Re others' question re DOMA, it passed 85-14 in the senate, 342-67 in the house, so Clinton could not have successfully vetoed it, but I do not excuse him for signing it.
No, he could not have successfully vetoed it. When a bill has made it through the House and Senate, the president has 3 choices: support the legislation by signing it; "no comment" the legislation by allowing it to pass without signing; or oppose the legislation by veto. Of course, the Congress has final say in the matter. Really, the presidential action on a bill is not much more than a position statement.
As to the tawdry comments about money: money is simply what we use to run our lives. Having a proportion of it grabbed by the government for ITS purposes, diminishes our ability to achieve OUR purposes as individuals whether that is handing it over to famine relief or spending it on big-dick porn. I simply believe in expanding the sphere of individual choice, by restricting the sphere of state choice. Now, who was it who said: "It's the economy, stupid!" ?
You are correct. How silly of me to have thought that the enormous deficits and the recession during the Clinton administration were somehow less egregious than the balanced budget and booming economy we have under Bush.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
As to the tawdry comments about money: money is simply what we use to run our lives. Having a proportion of it grabbed by the government for ITS purposes, diminishes our ability to achieve OUR purposes as individuals whether that is handing it over to famine relief or spending it on big-dick porn. I simply believe in expanding the sphere of individual choice, by restricting the sphere of state choice. Now, who was it who said: "It's the economy, stupid!" ?

Government exists for the well being of the whole of society, not to protect without qualification whatever socioeconomic position that you, with your selfish attitude, might have achieved at some particular point in time.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Isalmic radicalisation does not post-date the invasion of Iraq. Radical preachers have been active in the UK - especially on college campuses - for more than ten years. These people regard western liberal society as terminally decadent; they are determined to extinguish the values we hold and they are ready to accomplish this by force.

I don't think, however, that you can reasonably argue, given the tremendous destabilization and Islamic radical recruitment motivation that the Iraq war has engendered, that the Western nations and way of life are MORE safe because of the invasion of Iraq than they were before said invasion. I personally have no way of quantifying it, but a reasonable assumption might be that, broadly speaking, we are LESS safe, perhaps MUCH less so. I really don't see what the war has accomplished, at least as of this point in time, even from what seems to be your perspective.

My original post should have been clearer regarding being fearful of the future, by saying that we have MORE reason to be so than we did before the invasion and its aftermath occured, rather than perhaps seeming to say that our fear of the future began with it.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Another poster bangs on about "Anglo" countries and he is right to do so. It is highly significant that it is the countries that share the common law and the English language are the ones that have chosen, for the second time in a century, to stand up to fascism rather than seek to cut a deal with it.

The Anglo nations, with their innate sense of their own superiority, which you, by the way, demonstrated quite well in your response, have no more right to impose their political, legal, or other systems, customs, way of life, or beliefs on any other society any more than the Taliban has the right to impose its own forms of these things on a Western society.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a(n immediate) threat to Western society in a way that justified, in WESTERN MORAL TRADITION, the invasion, WHEN it took place.

And, darling, by the way, aren't you forgetting about Neville Chamberlain?
 

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 don't think, however, that you can reasonably argue, given the tremendous destabilization and Islamic radical recruitment motivation that the Iraq war has engendered, that the Western nations and way of life are MORE safe because of the invasion of Iraq than they were before said invasion. I personally have no way of quantifying it, but a reasonable assumption might be that, broadly speaking, we are LESS safe, perhaps MUCH less so. I really don't see what the war has accomplished, at least as of this point in time, even from what seems to be your perspective.

My original post should have been clearer regarding being fearful of the future, by saying that we have MORE reason to be so than we did before the invasion and its aftermath occured, rather than perhaps seeming to say that our fear of the future began with it.

Here I disagree. I do believe one could successfully argue that the Western democracies are safer because of the Iraq war. While I doubt Dubya considered it deeply, I am sure that there are those in his Administration that believed that invading Iraq would take the Islamic conflict directly to the enemy. I considered it at the time and didn't think the Islamic extremist would be so unwise as to engage the American military directly. Some of you are probably thinking that they don't look unwise to you. However one must consider the vast resources of the United States and the quite limited resources of the fundamentalist. America can afford a 10 to 1 loss of equipment and come out way ahead. And I believe it is well documented that the human toll has been much larger for the fundamentalist, and they had far fewer resources to begin with. They have suffered extensive losses. Add to that, the US is not in the conflict alone, and significant assistance has been provided by other western countries.

Some would claim that the west has suffered from an increased dislike by Arabs in general as a result of the war. However this would be impossible to measure (as no one could gain honest statistics from before the war or now). And quite unlikely, it has always been true that when you are no longer an image, but instead real people that are living next door (even if you are soldier) that you become more real to people. I definately believe that this has happened as a result of the war. We are all only human, and even some of the most extreme fundamental Islamics have seen this as a result of the war.

Either way, the War in Iraq took the battle to the enemy's home. And by doing so, it has greatly limited the resources of the terrorist to try and fight it here also. Thus, we are safer at least for now.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Either way, the War in Iraq took the battle to the enemy's home. And by doing so, it has greatly limited the resources of the terrorist to try and fight it here also. Thus, we are safer at least for now.

This sounds somewhat like a circular argument to me.

Iraq wasn't:

1. a bona fide military threat before the invasion.
2. a base for Islamic terrorists like Afghanistan.
3. immersed in a chaotic civil war.

The invasion made 2 and 3 possible.

Iraqi insurgents and, yes, some Islamic jihadis as well, are attacking the coalition military in Iraq now (when they're not attacking each other). But why would terrorists choose to directly assault only a hardened, fanged target in Iraq when there remain softer targets elsewhere? There's no reason to believe that the chaos in Iraq makes another al Quaeda attack in a western city less likely than it ever was.

Instead, we're just wasting lives and money in a far away place that might be better spent elsewhere. Taking the fight to the enemy's home is preferable in a traditional military sense but the fight against terrorism isn't a traditional military fight.
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,372
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
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.

Excuse me, but that was done to road block the Republicans who wanted to write gays out of the Constitution. Clinton saved our asses. What is now, is no where what it was then. Then did the whole DOMA to stop the Right.
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,372
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
Here I disagree. I do believe one could successfully argue that the Western democracies are safer because of the Iraq war. While I doubt Dubya considered it deeply, I am sure that there are those in his Administration that believed that invading Iraq would take the Islamic conflict directly to the enemy. I considered it at the time and didn't think the Islamic extremist would be so unwise as to engage the American military directly. Some of you are probably thinking that they don't look unwise to you. However one must consider the vast resources of the United States and the quite limited resources of the fundamentalist. America can afford a 10 to 1 loss of equipment and come out way ahead. And I believe it is well documented that the human toll has been much larger for the fundamentalist, and they had far fewer resources to begin with. They have suffered extensive losses. Add to that, the US is not in the conflict alone, and significant assistance has been provided by other western countries.

Some would claim that the west has suffered from an increased dislike by Arabs in general as a result of the war. However this would be impossible to measure (as no one could gain honest statistics from before the war or now). And quite unlikely, it has always been true that when you are no longer an image, but instead real people that are living next door (even if you are soldier) that you become more real to people. I definately believe that this has happened as a result of the war. We are all only human, and even some of the most extreme fundamental Islamics have seen this as a result of the war.

Either way, the War in Iraq took the battle to the enemy's home. And by doing so, it has greatly limited the resources of the terrorist to try and fight it here also. Thus, we are safer at least for now.


You know, I could sit here and teach this guy how to tie his shoes, but some people are just lost causes. Dear, try learning about foreign policy and the world outside of your own. The War in Iraq did not take any battle to any enemies' home. It was a gift on a silver platter.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Guys, I cannot even bring myself to read your posts on this subject. It's not that I don't trust you--I do--but I cannot remain emotionally level headed on this subject. Call me a hamster-dicked, no-balled useless piece of trash if you wish, but if I read even one pro Bush entry I will go ballistic. I just spent 10 days in Hyannisport on Cape Cod with my DAR, Mayflower mother and her (even more so) rolling in it grew-up-next-to Geo. Sr. 3rd husband who literally think Jr. is God's gift, the ONLY thing saving us from the imminent terrorist onslaught, people who sit around wondering, 'jokingly' on their boat saying things like 'I wonder what the poor people are doing', telling me about how I simply can't begin to comprehend the brilliance of Dubbya's Plan for this country but it will all become clear to me at some future date...oh god, I'm going to go puke now. Seriously, this is one hot topic for me, and if I could go to Switzerland and be put into a medically induced coma until after the next exection I think I might until "our long, national nightmare is over". Sorry to vent.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
When a bill has made it through the House and Senate, the president has 3 choices: support the legislation by signing it; "no comment" the legislation by allowing it to pass without signing; or oppose the legislation by veto. Of course, the Congress has final say in the matter. Really, the presidential action on a bill is not much more than a position statement.

... unless Congress fails to find a two-thirds level of support in both Houses for the vetoed bill, in which case the presidential veto holds.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
... unless Congress fails to find a two-thirds level of support in both Houses for the vetoed bill, in which case the presidential veto holds.
True. But it's not usual for a bill to make it through both houses, and receive a binding veto. Both houses usually have already decided whether or not they will "allow" a presidential veto, before it makes it to the president's desk. There have been some exceptions, but if the Congress passes it the first time around, it's not likely that they would fail the two-thirds test in the case of a veto.
 

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
You know, I could sit here and teach this guy how to tie his shoes, but some people are just lost causes. Dear, try learning about foreign policy and the world outside of your own. The War in Iraq did not take any battle to any enemies' home. It was a gift on a silver platter.

Why is it when someone does not have an intelligent reply, they find it somehow impressive to act like there's no need to provide one? If you have constructive retorts to the specific potential argument, then make them. If you don't stop smelling your ass.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Why is it when someone does not have an intelligent reply, they find it somehow impressive to act like there's no need to provide one? If you have constructive retorts to the specific potential argument, then make them. If you don't stop smelling your ass.

Well, sometimes people get a little flustered and have a failure of articulation when they are trying to respond to something as unbelievably ignorant as the post of yours that cocktaste was responding to. (YOUR original reponse, actually, was in response to one of my posts; I was too overcome by your profound stupidity to even try to respond it)
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,372
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
Why is it when someone does not have an intelligent reply, they find it somehow impressive to act like there's no need to provide one? If you have constructive retorts to the specific potential argument, then make them. If you don't stop smelling your ass.

Because some people are just too stupid and will never get it.
 

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
This sounds somewhat like a circular argument to me.

Iraq wasn't:

1. a bona fide military threat before the invasion.
2. a base for Islamic terrorists like Afghanistan.
3. immersed in a chaotic civil war.

The invasion made 2 and 3 possible.

Iraqi insurgents and, yes, some Islamic jihadis as well, are attacking the coalition military in Iraq now (when they're not attacking each other). But why would terrorists choose to directly assault only a hardened, fanged target in Iraq when there remain softer targets elsewhere? There's no reason to believe that the chaos in Iraq makes another al Quaeda attack in a western city less likely than it ever was.

Instead, we're just wasting lives and money in a far away place that might be better spent elsewhere. Taking the fight to the enemy's home is preferable in a traditional military sense but the fight against terrorism isn't a traditional military fight.

Yes - number 1 is correct. But invading the country certainly has not increased Iraq's abilities as a military threat. In fact, one could say that as a country Iraq will not be a significant threat for many years to come. I don't see how one could argue that we are less safe from attack by them as a result of the war, but I don't think one could argue that we are any safer either. The point has been made by many experts that we may be more likely (certainly in the long run) to suffer future problems and losses as a result of other countries in the area becoming larger military threats as a result of the invasion. I think this is a very valid point, but different than the one above regarding a reduced threat from Islamic extremist.

Yes - number 2 is correct. But the point can be made that by engaging in this war the focal point of attack by the terrorist became the military personnel there. It becomes an open confortation. The question becomes whether fighting us there makes these organizations stronger or weaker in their ability to initate successful attacks in the west? I am simply saying that one can successfully argue that it makes them weaker.

Yes - number 3 is correct. However a civil war there could in fact be an argument for a weakened Islamic fundamentalist campaign overall. If a group is now clearly divided and at war with each other than they logically make for a weaker enenmy. Thus the saying divide and conquer.

I wouldn't argue with the first part of your summary either. I wasn't saying that one could argue that the invasion was the best way to successfully reduce the likelihood of terrorist attack. Certainly one could quanitify the financial and personnel cost of this war (which my family has paid directly for in both instances) and conclude that the same resources dedicated to domestic safety would have produced far more substantial and beneficial results. What I was asking people to consider was whether one could successfully argue that it has improved it. Which I believe one could.

On the second part, I am not sure anyone knows. Taking the battle directly to Afganistan has returned with mixed results. Some would say that it was the best approach to fighting the terrorist there. At the very least, one could at least say that the best approach depends on the specific circumstances involved.

As I stated above, I believe that history will score this President at the lowest of performance levels. I think that is especially sad because someone else could have done an amazing amount of good for the world under the same circumstances. Lives would still have been lost, but they would have at least contibuted to a better world short-term and long-term.

btw - sorry if you felt included in my post on making an intellegent reply, I missed your response. my bad...