Hot damn! Not only do we agree (a first methinks) but that was a hell of an insightful post all-around.
Cheers. If we ever happen to meet, first and last one is on me.
ETA: and the ones in between as well. Too old to go Dutch…amongst many other things.
Where, other than a direct quote which even he isn’t dumb enought to say, would you get a cite for this type thing? I am basing my posts on his actions. And no I don’t know his religion, because to me Chrisitian based religions are all pretty much the same basic thing, and making minor distinctions is pointless- one eats meat, one doesn’t, etc.
So you don’t even know what religion he follows, yet you’re certain he bases every decision on his religious beliefs.
You’re a bit of an idiot today, aren’t you?
If Bush were a foaming fanatic gay-hater, why wouldn’t he publicly and directly express that gay-hatred? Plenty of other politicians have run on at the mouth about how depraved and horrible and damned gays are.
You say you base your opinions on his actions.
OK. What actions are those? Opposing gay marriage? Not lifting don’t ask, don’t tell?
What president signed DOMA? What president instituted don’t ask don’t tell?
Judged by his actions and words, why exactly do you imagine that Bush is more of a fanatic gay-hater than Bill Clinton? My contention is that both have similar levels of gay-hatred, that is, very little.
Face it, you got George Bush confused with other Republicans who are gay-haters. Just apologize to the poor man and we can put this behind us.
People, people! Won’t somebody think of the childrens!
From Uncyclopedia’s UnNews: Ahmadinejad pleads, “Send us your homosexuals”
Well, sometimes those politicians think a little bit too much about the children, if you know what I mean…
Bill Clinton is clearly a good man based on his actions and what he does in life. Bush had chances to show approval of gays and didn’t. Also, he had chances to sign bills to get healthcare to poor minority kids, but he won’t do it, but I guess he still cares about them.
Actions, not words, show your character. Agreee maybe Bush isn’t a rabid kill fags type guy, but he surely has done nothing to embrace them, and is doing his damndest to keep them from getting the same rights as straights.
Um, no.
Mr. & Mrs. Clinton in 1992 gave the gay leadership an indication that they backed them and their aspirations, and valued their support. However, when faced with opposition, they waffled and compromised. But remember that politics is “the art of the possible.” Compared to the situation 20 years before, “don’t ask don’t tell” was a major positive step.
I think it’s quite possible to accept that Rome was not built in a day if you can actually see blueprints of the Colosseum, Pantheon, etc., and they’re actually building a length of aqueduct.
I can be quite sympathetic to someone who has the (IMO distorted) religious belief that two men or two women having sex is somehow substantially more reprehensible to God than the things He is supposed to have explicitly condemned while in the flesh, like hypocrisy and Pharisaic judgmentalism – and that not stopping them from their evil acts will somehow cause Him to bring down His Wrath on everybody. The fact that this mental construct is completely contradictory to the God whom Jesus taught of, seems to have escaped them – but one can understand why, figuratively speaking, nobody wants to be next door neighbor to a gay couple when the community is being threatened by a homophobe with an atomic bomb.
If that were Mr. Bush’s stance, I’d be substantially more sympathetic to him than I am.
Rather, Mr. Bush is a Methodist, a religious moderate. But he’s a Republican politician, and for reasons known best to their leadership, the Republican Party has decided that the way to political success is to buy off the middle class by token gestures towards their tax burden, become the best friend of Big Business who will underwrite their substantial financial expenses, and buy the votes of the Religious Right by pandering to their bigotry, even though they themselves do not share those bigoted views.
That Joe Fundamentalist supports the Federal Marriage Amendment because in his (to me distorted) view God will send down His Wrath on a country that goes so far from His traditional morality as to recognize gay marriages legally, is something that, while I find it bizarre and reprehensible, I can grasp. You do what you believe to be right, whether you’re fundamentalist or liberal.
But for someone to actively support a constitutional amendment barring what many (including me) claim is a form of equal rights, not because he believes it to be the moral thing to do, but because supporting it will win him the votes of those who do believe so, is a despicable act in my opinion.
And I am not even going to get into the probable motivations for the Iraq War.
Particularly when the legality of marriage is a state responsibility, not a Federal one.
I accept your apology.
Well, if you don’t feel qualified to judge the validity of a cite, why did you have me read it to you?
Fine, then - find me a reputable cite that shows that Bush started his career as a member of a quasi-governmental organization that engaged in torture and executions, and we can talk. Otherwise, you’re just wasting time.
Quit playing this trolling, “let’s pretend you have to cite that the sky is blue” game. It’s annoying, and you are better than that.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe he’s not a rabid fag hater. Maybe he is. I can’t say for sure he is, but can anyone say for sure he isn’t?
My personal opinionis he is, but smart enough(!) not to say it. Until he’s out of office, of course, and shilling for some church. Time will tell! 
Where did I say that? What I originally objected to was you just giving the link to a very long article and expecting me (and others) to comb thru the whole thing for the few sentences you thought were relevant.
Pffft. There is no reason they have to have done those things in the same way. That’s a standard that can almost never be met, and isn’t relevant anyway. Your cite simply said that it has been reported…, and doesn’t list any primary sources.
I have no idea what that means, and if you think I’m trolling then stop responding. DNFTT.
Furthermore, the whole “torturer and executioner” is a strawman, since I never claimed he wasn’t. You responded to that when I said he wasn’t a dictator, which he isn’t.
Weren’t you just arguing that Bush doesn’t hate gays at all, he just takes anti-gay stances to placate the religious right? Isn’t it just as possible that Bush has moderated his anti-gay prejudice to avoid alienating middle-class voters who, while not keen on giving gays full equality with straights, are still repelled by more extreme examples of homophobic venom?
I admit, I tend to agree with your interpretation of Bush’s motives, but there’s not significantly more evidence to support the idea that Bush is secretly okay with gays, than there is to support the idea that he secretly hates us.
Which is nice, but whether he hates gays or is a closet gay himself is irrelevant. He isn’t a leader in a government who officially kills them just because they just happen to exist nor advocates for such actions.
Maybe you’re a serial puppy-kicker. Mabye you’re not. I can’t say for sure that you are, but can anyone say for sure that you aren’t?
Well, Bush surely has a piss-poor record on gay rights. Of course he hasn’t done jack shit for gay rights. And of course, comparing him to Bill Clinton is beside the point, since Bush’s record on gay rights stands or falls on its own merits, and it mostly falls.
I just object to the notion that Bush is some brainwashed bible-beater who hates non-heterosexuals, non-whites, and non-christians. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn’t. But if you wish to convince me that Bush hates fags, you’ll have to show some evidence, like a speech where he says he hates fags, or blacks, or muslims. Or something.
The mere fact that Bush is a Republican, or that he lied about the Iraq war, or that he’s an idiot, is not evidence that he hates gays.
As for the notion that after Bush leaves office, he’ll show his true colors by becoming a shill for some church, well, how much do you want to bet? How much pro-church shilling did Bush do before he was president? Just about zero. Like Cheney’s military service, it just wasn’t a priority for him. So how much time is he going to spend shilling for the religious right after he leaves office? Just about zero.
Now, ask me how much time he’s going to spend shilling for his buddies in the oil industry. And we’ll compare that ratio and come to a determination about how much Bush cares about homosexuality vs how much he cares about helping the rich.
There really are nationally prominent Republicans who really do go out of their way to blather about homosexuality. Some of them are faking it, I’m sure, but it surely isn’t unreasonable to take them at face value without some other evidence, like being arrested for disorderly conduct in a men’s room.
Anyway, this discussion has gone on long enough. Seems to me that the old adage “Know your enemy” still has value. And it seems to me that there are lots of people on this board who want to fight against George Bush as they wish he were, rather than what he actually is. Except they are fighting an illusion, smoke and mirrors. YES, there really is an anti-gay movement, yes it is part of the Republican party. But pretending George Bush is a leader in the anti-gay movement is a huge mistake. It’s bad enough that he’s a follower.
Why in the world did puppy-kicking Wee Bairn bring up Bush anyway? Trying to give ammunition to the “The Dope is a liberal-leaning bastion of anti-Bush paritisanship” crowd?
And if my post had in anyway addressed that issue, you’d have made a relevant point.
Okay, that was a lot harsher than your post merited. Sorry, Uzi.