Jump to content

You must see this photo


Rick Munroe
This topic is 6606 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest zipperzone

>Personally, I'm voting for

>George Bush and can't wait until the election is over! ;)

 

Oh really! My my, what a fool you are..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I'm having a "whine" and French cheese party on Friday night

>Nov. 2 for all my Democratic Party friends in order that they

>can lick their wounds. The election's over and Bush will

>win-- just get over it!!!

>

>Kippy}(

 

Kippy, I still can't understand why any gay man would vote for George Bush, the man who puhes a Consitutioanl Amendement to deny you your basic rights. Please sxplain that to me.

 

It can't be the economy, because the economy sucks. It can't be terrorism, because we are less safe now that we were three years ago, and that idiot went after the wrong enemy (Iraq on Al Queda). It can't be the war in Iraq, because that has been fucked up beyond belief. It can' be the environment or health care either.

 

Tax breaks. Maybe, but I bet you aren't rich enough to benefit. And for most folks the piddly tax breaks do nothing to balance the increase in inflation, energy price increases or health care cost increases.

 

Please explain to me why a gay man, or any Ameircan for that matter, would vote AGAINST thier own intersts. It still baffles me. Maybe you beleive the crap that they spew on FOX. Otherwise, I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a gay support Bush???

 

Paul,

 

I know you asked Kippy to respond, and I also suspect that you probably aren't really interested in hearing an honest answer to your question, but on the chance that maybe you do, I am going to offer a response to your post:

 

1. You said: "Kippy, I still can't understand why any gay man would vote for George Bush, the man who puhes a Consitutioanl Amendement to deny you your basic rights. Please sxplain that to me.".

 

As far as I remember, the word marriage does NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, marriage, straight nor gay, is directly supported in the Constitution. If you're thinking that "pursuit of happiness" covers marriage, well I would agree, but I think that is contained in the Bill of Rights. All that aside, the bottom line is Gay rights is hardly the only issue that I care about. I think other issues are alot more important, and I vote on what is important. To spin a few sound bites on your question, #1 "I don't have to marry the guy to get my dick sucked", and #2 "The dead (becuase of a terrorist) don't worry about gay rights.

 

2. You said "It can't be the economy, because the economy sucks.".

 

Well, I don't agree with you that the economy sucks. The Democrat's efforts to "make hay" with the jobs issue falls flat with me, cause we have record low unemployment. When presented with this fact, the Dem's then try to cover by saying that the new jobs are not as good as the old ones. Here are a few facts: #1 NAFTA was approved under the Clinton administration - so if you have a problem with jobs going overseas, start your blame with Bill. #2 The recession started while Clinton was still in office, and has ended under Bush 43. #3 The W.T.C. was attacked with significant economic impact -- before you blame "W" remember that Clinton had 8 years and literally Bin Laden in the gun sites, but lacked the foresight/guts to pull the trigger.

 

3. You said "It can't be terrorism, because we are less safe now that we were three years ago, and that idiot went after the wrong enemy (Iraq on Al Queda). It can't be the war in Iraq, because that has been fucked up beyond belief."

 

No surprise that I will disagree with you again. The U.S. was attacked on 9-11. I personally witnessed this "live" with my own eyes. Now, here are some reasons why I believe we are safer:

 

a. 3/4 of senior Al Quada leadership are either dead or captured. THREE-FREAKIN QUARTERS!!!

 

b. Afganastan is no longer a terrorist haven.

 

c. We have made great progress fighting terrorism with Pakistan.

 

d. We have finally made real and substantial progress fighting terror with Saudi Arabia.

 

e. Russia now "gets it".

 

f. A significant number of terrorists are flocking to Iraq to take on our military. I would much rather have the terrorists preocupied with Iraq as opposed to plotting to attack on U.S. soil. I hope every terrorist on earth goes to Iraq to fight our military!

 

4. You said "It can' be the environment or health care either".

 

On the issue of the environment, I admit I'm not much of a "bunny hugger", and environmental issues would rarely sway my vote. As for health care, Hiliary was wrong when she declared that health care is a "right", and I sure don't want the Government taking over the health care system.

 

5. You said "Tax breaks. Maybe, but I bet you aren't rich enough to benefit. And for most folks the piddly tax breaks do nothing to balance the increase in inflation, energy price increases or health care cost increases."

 

I just had this discussion with someone today. He complained that the measily $300 tax cut he got wasn't enough. So I asked him how much tax he actually paid. Of course, it wasn't very much. I pointed out to him that if he had children in his household, he would have received a larger break. Ya see, if you don't pay alot of tax, you can't expect a huge tax cut, and shouldn't be so quick to bitch when people who do pay alot of tax get a little, well-deserved break.

 

6. You said "Please explain to me why a gay man, or any Ameircan for that matter, would vote AGAINST thier own intersts. It still baffles me. Maybe you beleive the crap that they spew on FOX. Otherwise, I just don't get it."

 

Well, as I discussed earlier, being Gay is only one aspect of your life. I don't agree with Bush's position on Stem Cell research either, but that doesn't mean I would vote for Kerry. I will spare you the details of how much I dislike Kerry, but leave you with the thought that the Dem party is run by it's worst elements -- had the Dems put up anything resembling a decent candidate his election this year would have been a certainty.

 

Ready

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Why would a gay support Bush???

 

Thanks Ready!!!!!!!!!! I would/could have responded in exactly the same way but simply don't have the time or energy. But isn't it fun to shake up the fag machine?? For those who think that all gays are liberals in every sense of the word-- THINK again-- many, many of us are social and governmental conservatives who just happen to be gay as one part of our reality. While we like a good fuck as much as the next (liberal) guy we don't buy into all this liberal, bleeding heart bullshit. We are after all the minority of DIVERSITY are we not??

 

Peace,

 

Kipp;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Why would a gay support Bush???

 

"If you're thinking that "pursuit of happiness" covers marriage, well I would agree, but I think that is contained in the Bill of Rights."

 

I do believe, the Bill of Rights is indeed the very same thing as the 1st thru 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Why would a fag support Bush???

 

IMO, they aren't gays, as they don't identify in any way at all, in any aspect, except the physically sexual, with gays. To them a man having sex only with another man or a woman having sex only with another woman is what defines what it is to be gay. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Why would a gay support happiness???

 

Try the Declaration of Independence:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Why would a fag support Bush???

 

Now, Now, Nellies... bitter and wrong again! Just because someone isn't a bitchy screamer doesn't mean they don't embrace the "gay" culture and aren't in touch with whom they are. I've been happily "out" for years, but many things are a part of my make up and many things define who I am. Being Gay is an important one, but not the only one. But what fun to rattle the cage of the gay "illuminatti" to show how diverse we really are!!!

 

Peace,

 

Kipp:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts Are Stupid Things

 

To quote the great communicator, facts are stupid things:

 

>3. You said "It can't be terrorism, because we are less safe

>now that we were three years ago, and that idiot went after

>the wrong enemy (Iraq on Al Queda). It can't be the war in

>Iraq, because that has been fucked up beyond belief."

>

>No surprise that I will disagree with you again. The U.S. was

>attacked on 9-11. I personally witnessed this "live" with my

>own eyes. Now, here are some reasons why I believe we are

>safer:

>

>a. 3/4 of senior Al Quada leadership are either dead or

>captured. THREE-FREAKIN QUARTERS!!!

 

As any number of non-partisan news organizations and academic sources have stated, post debate analysis, including Fox News Channel, this figure represents both an estimate of what intelligence analysist prior to the invasion of Afghanistan of the individuals believed to represent leadership positions in the terrorist group. Of that estimate, yes, approximately 75% have been apprehended. However, as reported, new people have taken there place. This 75 percent (and more) have been readily and easily replaced. The person taking responsibility of the insurgency in Iraq is one such example.

 

>

>b. Afganastan is no longer a terrorist haven.

 

Very true, although the Taliban has been able to regroup and has caused problems, including the deaths of civilian, NGO, aid group, and U.S. Army, as well as NATO and other peace keeping forces. Additionally, the argument that Iraq was a distraction from finishing what could have been an even greater achievement in Afghanistan, including the capture of Bin Laden in the mountains adjacent to Pakistan, is not merely an opinion, but an analysis by both the CIA and military intelligence.

 

>c. We have made great progress fighting terrorism with

>Pakistan.

 

See above. Pakistan still refuses to permit U.S. military to search for Taliban and Al Queda members within their borders. Known members of both these groups are being shelted by tribal leaders and villagers in areas where even the Pakistani army cannot easily and regularly travel. The leader of Pakistan has already faced two assasination attempts and, finally, scientist who helped develop nuclear weapons and went ahead and sold this knowledge and technology to other countries, including IRAN and KOREA, are being sheltered by the Pakistan government, which has done nothing to genuinely reprimand these individuals, inspite of clear, uncontroverted and substanital evidence of these criminal acts in violation of international law and treaties, and even pardoned the head of their nuclear program for engaging in these sales to states identified by Bush as part of his "axis of evil."

 

>d. We have finally made real and substantial progress

>fighting terror with Saudi Arabia.

>

>e. Russia now "gets it".

 

Since your candidate for Vice President recommended it, I would suggest you go look at factcheck.com (or factcheck.org, which is what Cheney intended to state) to discover you are substanitally wrong about these two as well.

 

>

>f. A significant number of terrorists are flocking to Iraq to

>take on our military. I would much rather have the terrorists

>preocupied with Iraq as opposed to plotting to attack on U.S.

>soil. I hope every terrorist on earth goes to Iraq to fight

>our military!

 

I am sure the over 1000 dead and the many thousands of wounded, maimed and otherwise severely negatively impacted reservists and other members of the armed forces appreciate the fact that you, Mr. Bush and his administration and its supporter continue to take comfort in the fact that these enlisted men and women get to act as cannon fodder on behalf of Mr. Bush.

 

Mission accomplished, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Facts Are Stupid Things

 

Franco,

 

I do respect that you have made an informed reply. I do, however, have to respectfully disagree with you, especially on your use of the phrase "cannon fodder" to describe Iraq.

 

It is a fact that the U.S. has lost over 1000 lives in the current Iraq war. Every life is precious, and every loss is tragic. But it is also true that freedom isn't free, and the price of freedom is all too often paid in blood.

 

Let me discuss genocide. In WWII, Germany, under Hitler's lead, was committing mass murder. Germany never attacked the United States on U.S. soil. In the invasion of Normandy, U.S. young men were LITERALLY cannon fodder. I #1 think that those who died or were wounded in that conflict are heros and sacrificed for a nobel cause, and #2 for you to equate that to Iraq is very disrespectful. If you use D-Day as a comparison, we lost 1000 sacred lives per hour, not 1000 per year as in Iraq.

 

Now, changing focus a bit, genocide and starvation are not exactly the same thing. But I do recall an event, I think called "Live Aid", where the most liberal of musical artists came together to help feed the starving in Ethiopia, and "Let them know it's Christmas.".

 

Keep with me here, more recently, under the Clinton adminstration, there was Genocide in Bosnia Slavacia or whatever those countries are calling themselves.

 

Here is the point: Genocide or starvation or any mass death of the human population is wrong. The U.S. was moral and correct when it invaded France in WWII; it was moral and correct when it raised funds to feed the starving in Ethopia; likewise when it help end genocide in Bosnia; and EQUALLY MORAL AND CORRECT when it ended the murder and torture of 100's of thousands (millions if you count the IRAN and Gulf wars) in Iraq.

 

To further make the point, am I to believe that the lives of Jews, Ethiopians, and Slavicians are worth saving, but the lives of of innocent Iraqis are irrevelant???

 

One more ugly fact: The economic santions on Iraq that many of the anti-war members like to "cling to" resulted in the starvation of Iraqi men, women, and children.

 

The so-called "Rush to war" was actually thirteen years of failed diplomacy. I for one think waiting 13 years is being pretty damm patient!

 

And we all now know why France, Germany, and Russia were not on-board with the war on Iraq - THEY were bribed via corruption in the oil-for-food program.

 

As I said in a previuos post, let our extremely capable military fight the terrorists in Iraq, cause it beats the hell out of the terrorists taking "cheap shots" at us here at home.

 

Love

 

Ready

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...