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.