You know that Cheney has a lesbian daughter, right? You think Bush and Cheney hate her?
The dirty secret of the Republican leadership is that almost all of them are closet tolerants. They aren’t afraid of gays, they don’t think gays are going to hell, they don’t hate gays, gays don’t disgust them.
Now, it may be that publically opposing gay rights even though you don’t hate gays but rather because you want the support of people who hate gays is actually worse than opposing gay rights because you personally hate gays.
Of course there are some Republican leaders who go on and on about how disgusting gays are. But Bush isn’t one of them.
I can’t fault Bollinger for inviting Ahmedenijad, and I’m not complaining about his ruthless introduction, either. Universities try to get controversial speakers, and it’s a feather in his cap to score a president of another nation. The fact that MA is famously daft, wants to wipe Israel off the map, and claims the Holocaust never happened is so much the better. Columbia was on every front page in the US.
Having landed such a spectacular “get”, Bollinger found himself in a shower of angry communications from alumni. Rather than look like a stooge for a dangerous wacko, he introduced the speaker as a dangerous wacko. Unpopular speakers on campuses are often shouted down, and the crowd makes so much noise that the speaker cannot be heard. At Columbia, Bollinger had already nailed the fool to the wall, so there was nothing left to shout about.
President Ahmedenijad, for his part, gave his usual showing. He danced around most controversies, but he couldn’t stop himself from saying a few crazy things. It was enough to show us that he’s not just confidently ignorant, not just crazy, but both. All told, it was a good show.
Then even worse, he like the gays, privately supports them, is in a position to give them a hand, but refuses to because of what his supporters would think? What a great great man. Then I guess the day before he leaves office he’s going to sign a bunch of pro gay legislation, becasue what his cronies think of him when he’s out of office won’t matter, right? Wrong, his God wouldn’t like it if he did that.
Maybe I’m missing something here: Are you saying that people who don’t like Bush don’t think Ahmedenijad is loony? Or is it just that those who support Bush aren’t allowed to say he Ahmedenijad is loony? Can’t someone say Ahmedenijad is loony just because he is fucking loony?!
No, not right, because Bush is a Republican, and the Republicans need the anti-gay vote, and he’s not going to damage the Republican party to help the gays. It’s not that I believe Bush lies awake at night wishing he could do something to help the gays, but his hands are tied by the mean Religious Right. It’s that I don’t believe that Bush lies awake at night wishing he could do something to hurt the gays, but his hands are tied by the mean liberal Democrats. Bush doesn’t care about homosexuality at all.
Seriously, find me one quote from Bush where he talkis about how God hates fags. You aren’t going to find one. You’ll find nasty anti-gay religious comments from several other prominent Republicans, but you’re not going to find one from Bush.
Sure, Bush opposes gay marriage. But it’s not like there used to be legal gay marriage in this country, and Bush took it away. The notion that Bush is some foaming religious extremist is just a fantasy. Yes, there are foaming religious extremists in the Republican party. Bush isn’t one of them, any more than Reagan was.
That depends on what you mean by “against drinking.” Certainly the historic position was that the UMC was “dry” – abstinence was required. And the UMC still expresses concern about alcohol and drug abuse. But they have also recognized that many people are now social drinkers and they have grudgingly allowed that social drinking may by okay.
This does read like you should have the highball glass in your left hand and the Good Book in your right, but drinking is no longer prohibited.
But it’s not like the US not having laws to kill gays has anything to do with Clinton, either. Or the other Clinton, or McCain, or Nader or Perot or LaRouche. Laws we have NEVER had don’t have anything to do with anyone. Because they don’t exist, and have never existed.
One puts gay people to death, the other doesn’t. I think that’s a pretty damn important comparison, and it says a lot to me. Differences of degree can be very significant when, as here, it’s a BIG HONKIN’ degree.
No, of course not. His religion, or at least his denomination, is pro-gun-control, anti-death-penalty, and none to thrilled about war. None of those positions accord with his stances on the issues, but that doesn’t seem to be keeping him up nights.
You’re the one making the claim that Bush bases every action on the religious dogma of his church. Shouldn’t it be up to you to, oh I don’t know, substantiate your claim rather than simply assert it over and over and over?
Maybe you could find out what church Bush is a member of, and what their stance on abortion, gays, everything, is? And you could then show what Bush’s stance on abortion, gays, everything is? And then show how they’re exactly the same?
In other words:
You’ve stated that Bush thinks gays are going to burn in hell if they don’t change their ways. Cite?
You’ve stated that Bush hates gays. Cite?
You’ve stated that Bush despises those who don’t share his religion. Cite?
Do you even know what church Bush is a member of? Hint: careful reading of this thread will give you the answer.
But it’s not like the US not having laws to kill gays has anything to do with Clinton, either. Or the other Clinton, or McCain, or Nader or Perot or LaRouche. Laws we have NEVER had don’t have anything to do with anyone. Because they don’t exist, and have never existed.