I don’t know what it is, but name a boy Kevin, Bruce, Mark, or Mazdak and you’re playing with fire.
If I saw someone kick a puppy and did nothing about it, wouldn’t you think even if I didn’t partake in it, that I at least condoned it?
Bush has the chance to help gays, but he refuses. His cronies and supporters wouldn’t like it, but methinks he doesn’t want it either. Even if he did, what kind of a man is he, leader of the country, one who can make a positive change in so many lives, but refuses? If he likes gays but won’t go against his people, he’s a coward.
If he hates gays like many suspect, he’s a sick bastard as well.
Well, as I said, if you want to criticize Bush for the moral cowardice of following along with the anti-gay movement, feel free. Because I agree with you.
But that’s a bit different than being a religion-programmed hatebot, which you accused him of, now isn’t it?
Why again would he be worried about his supporters when he can’t be elected again? So on Jan 19, 2009 along with all of the pardons he’s going to be signing for his pals (I know, all presidents do it), he’s going to sign all those gay rights bills, then? If he’s down with the gays, then wouldn’t that be the perfect time to show it? What would keep it from doing it then? Jesus, that’s who.
On Jan 20, 2009 I be glad to reopen this thread and offer a big apology if he does. But something tells me he won’t.
Loyalty to the Republican party, which will want to maintain its image as “The Party that Hates Queers,” is a more likely motive. Flip-flopping on the issue, after he was so prominent in leading Republican efforts to restrict gay rights, would damage the Republican party’s overall image.
No, of course he’s not going to sign a bunch of pro-gay legislation on his last day in office. I’ve said plenty of times that he doesn’t secretly want to help the gays.
If he really wanted to help the gays, he’d be doing that now, if only in subtle ways. The fact that he isn’t doing it now indicates that he has no interest in helping the gays.
Your contention that the only reason a politician wouldn’t sign a boatload of pro-gay legislation on their last day in office is because Jesus told them to hate gays is laughable. How many last minute pro-gay bills did Bill Clinton sign? Why didn’t Bill Clinton do that? Because Jesus told him that gays are abominations?
Use your fucking head. Stop acting like a child. If you can’t understand why politicians do the things they do, you’re going to be continually bewildered, and you’re going to be completely ineffectual at changing the things you want to change.
WHY is Bush anti-gay? You don’t have the first clue. You’re like the anti-abortion protestor who imagines that planned parenthood is filled with people who secretly enjoy murdering babies. Your brain doesn’t have room for a shred of understanding beyond “My side good! Their side bad!”
Ok, take legislation out of the question- has he ever met with gay groups, to hear their concerns (voluntarily)? Had a group of GLAAD members over to the White House one evening for a video and S’mores? Done anything that shows at least that if his hands are tied, he wants them to know that if things were different he’d be helping them out?(I don’t know the answer, maybe he has.)
You’re missing the point. Lemur isn’t saying that he secretly likes gays, he’s saying he doesn’t care about gays. Which is to say, he has neither admiration nor animus towards us. All he cares about is how he can leverage prejudice into votes. But that’s not the same thing has holding that prejudice himself. Personally, I don’t think Bush has any deeply held beliefs. If he thought eating babies would keep him in office, the White House kitchen would be preparing toddler tartar every night.
This is completely different from what you said before, which was to speculate specific evil motivations to him and to assert he believes and wants all gays to fry in hell.
I’m not here to defend Bush’s stance on gays. I will only point out that there’s a whole lot of emotional playing field that can’t be summed up as “likes gays” or “hates gays,” “doesn’t care about gays” being one. If you want to talk about cowardice and hypocrisy, aim your gun at Cheney.
Miller, my post wasn’t a criticism of what you said. I was springboarding off of it to emphasize the point that Bush has absolutely nothing to do with the treatment of Gays in Iran. Iran is responsible 100% for its actions and those actions have no bearing on what Bush, or anyone else does. In other words, I’m agreeing with what ArizonaTeach said earlier, “Why in the world did puppy-kicking Wee Bairn bring up Bush anyway?”.
Also, I don’t understand why Wee Bairn assumes that because someone criticizes Iran they are automatically on the right of the political spectrum and thus support Bush. Where the hell does that come from? I hope that no matter what a person’s political stripes that they would condemn injustice no matter who does it. I personally think that gays should be allowed to get married, and I am on the right of the political spectrum, but I also realize that issue is worlds away from gays being killed for just being gay.
Not that I am defending a cruel dictator, but perhaps something was lost in translation in that he really meant that there wasn’t an open homosexual culture in Iran that was an important part of the political discourse (since they are killed outright).
On the fact of it, it was such a foolish statement, that he couldn’t have meant it that way. It would be like saying there are no terrorists in America. Obviously, there are, but there aren’t accepted pockets of them living autonomously…