And people wonder why I don’t like the administration.
:rolleyes: your link says nothing about banning pro-gay theatres.
It’s “theatre,” as in “live dramatic performance”, not the venues. And as much as I depsise Dubya, I don’t see from the article that he explicitly supports Allen’s bill or that Dubya has any influence on the Alabama state legislature. The editor who inserted the sub-head for the article obviously over-reached to slam Dubya unfairly.
Good article, otherwise.
Oh, the difference a letter makes. No, it doesn’t say they want to ban pro-gay theaters, but it does say “Bush’s base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that ‘promote homosexuality’.” Now, this guy (not Bush, but Gerald Allen - who the fark is Gerald Allen?) sounds like a total moron who hasn’t thought this through. When asked if he would cut state funding for Shakespeare’s works, which often contain references to homosexuality:
So :rolleyes: right back atcha.
Or, on preview, what **gobear **said.
Allow me to explain how “liberal” values and homosexuality are destroying families in America.
On Thanksgiving I met Chet. Chet is a 3-year-old with attachment disorder. He grew up in with parents who never gave him consistant love, and as a result, he can’t relate to people very well. Last year, he tried to kill his infant brother. Had he continued on this path, he would have ended up dead or in prison by the age of 18. He is a clear example of how bad parenting can ruin a child.
In steps Wendy. She is a genius with troubled children, and has a good bit of experience with them. In the 2 months that she has had custody of Chet, she has turned him around completely. He is now nearly 100% as emotionally developed as a kid his age should be. Will he be returned to his birth parents? Not according to a judge who happens to value common sense above some vague notion of “family values.” Last week he ruled that Chet cannot be taken away from Wendy for any reason, by anyone. Period. Unless she gives him up for adoption (unlikely), she will be his mommy forever.
Is this the kind of mothering of which the “family values” crowd approves? Not on your life. Wendy is not only a single mom, but a lesbian, and a flaming liberal to boot. She is exactly the kind of sick pervert that the so-called “family values” crowd believes is bad for families. I have no doubt that should this situation come to the attention of the Bushites, Chet will be returned to his abusive birth parents. Because that’s what Jesus would do.
Sick fucks.
On review, this was probably not the right thread for my rant. Oops.
Still there is nothing in your link about banning pro-gay theatre just some dumbass that wants to remove state funding for ‘pro-gay’ (what ever that means) plays.
Oh, a rant like that fits quite well into most any thread. Thanks for sharing that story.
Yep. I still wonder, given the paucity of information in your link relating to the Bush Administration.
Thanks. 
I knew there would be hand waving about Bush not really being involved. But why then is Allen set up for his fifth meeting with Bush? How many times has Patrick Guerriero met with Bush?
I don’t know. But if you don’t know either, then you’re offering argumentum ad ignorantiam: we don’t know, so it must be true.
If you have some evidence to invite the inference that Bush met with Allen to discuss the planning of this legislation, let’s hear it.
Look, as much as I dislike the man (and I do…I really, really do), if we keep blaming Bush every time a wing-nut so much as sneezes we’re going to lose any credibility we ever had.
Allan is nutsac. We know this. And yes, he’s meeting with Bush. But that’s expected…there’s an old Texas political saying, “Ya gotta dance with who brung ya.” Bush is dancing. But even I don’t believe he’s going to simply step back and let Falwell, et al, sit in the Big Chair. He’s going to do the same things he’s been doing for the last four years: doing just enough to satisfy the wingnuts that he’s doing something without actually doing anything substantive for them.
The idea that this Alabama initiative is somehow being marionetted from the Oval Office is (forgive me, Homebrew) tinfoil hattery of the highest order.
Allan is a nutsac. :smack:
Gotta go with Bricker on this one. The article only says that this is Allen’s fifth meeting with Bush–it doesn’t say if the meetings were photo ops with a state delegation Allen was part of, if Bush and Allen attended a large meeting at the same time, if Allen was just one of the attendees at a bill signing. Allen could easily spin any of those into a self-aggrandizing “meeting with the President.” I wouldn’t be astonished if Bush supported the bill, but we have no evidence that he does.
Despicable as the bill is, it’s Alabama state business, not federal legislation, so Dubya’s opinion of the bill or its author don’t really matter. Dubya has nothing to do with state-level bills.
And it’s not banning pro-gay theatre, but removing state funding for pro-gay books or materials. It’s unonstitutional and won’t get out of committee, but it looks good to the moronic Jeezer community.
Oh please. In no way am I suggesting that Bush is involved in drafting specific legislation in Alabama. I am simply pointing out that they share similar “values” and are decidedly anti-gay. It’s easy from the evidence to infer that they’re discussing similar goals and tactics. Birds of a feather and all that rot.
BTW, the answer to the Guerriero question is Zero.
But as I pointed out, we have no way of knowing if Allen really had private meetings or if he was spinning routine large group meetings to give the impression that he has more access to Dubya than is factually the case. I wouldn’t be shocked to find that Bush approves of the bill, but given the clamor for face time with the president, I really doubt, based on this article, that Dubya really sets aside chunks of time to meet with a small-time pol from Alabama.
Is it a sayin’ in Tennessee, too?
Bush can’t run again. He doesn’t have to dance with anyone he doesn’t want to. Maybe it brings you comfort to believe Bush is benign. But it’s Pollyannish to do so.
I don’t necessarily think he’s benign. I certainly wouldn’t care to leave my freedoms up to his discretion in a country with no checks on presidential power. But I also don’t think he has any kind of agenda on gay folk other than (up until Nov 2) “get re-elected” and (afterward) “don’t hurt any of my fellow Republicans’ chances of getting re-elected”. And that’s why he’s still dancing with the wingnuts…there are any number of things he could do before November, 2008, that would harm Congressional Republicans’ chances in 2006 and 2008. If it weren’t possible for a sitting president’s reputation/actions, why did the Democratic candidates (both presidential and congressional) run away from Clinton at speed in 2000? (Although, ironically, Gore probably would be President right now if he’d embraced Clinton instead of treating him like a leper)
The answer is that President Bush and his advisors did not move to ban pro-gay theatre. When this was first pointed out, it was characterized as “hand waving.”
Now Homebrew seems prepared to concede that President Bush is not, in fact, moving to ban pro-gay theatre.
So we are left with:
Alabama legislator moves to ban “pro-gay” theatre – President Bush & advisors probably privately approve of this and similar plans.