Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Gays explain why they voted for Bush (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Gays explain why they voted for Bush
Aquarian Girl
unregistered
posted November 17, 2004 09:25 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Michael Winn, 62, a health care industry professional who lives in Deerfield Beach, Fla., said he voted for George W. Bush for president this year after having voted for Al Gore four years ago.

Winn is a gay man and a lifelong Democrat, although he admits he “strayed” from his party in the 1980s when he voted for Ronald Reagan.

“When 9/11 happened, I thought President Bush was so wonderful because he brought the country together,” he said. “He began the war on terrorism, which I strongly support.”

Winn makes clear that he disagrees with the president on some issues, such as a constitutional ban on gay marriage and stem cell research.

“But I feel the issue of national security is more important than the issue of gay marriage and the other issues I don’t agree with him on,” he said.


Read the whole article here - http://www.washblade.com/2004/11-12/news/national/explain.cfm

I thought it was a good read

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 17, 2004 10:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're right, it is an interesting read

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 18, 2004 01:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The FBI is doing a thorough "witchhunt" search for all homosexauls(to burn them to the stake by 2008), direct orders from Pat Robertson and the 700 club committee themselves a.k.a. the new American government, so if Mr.Michael Winn can be so kind, that if he can forfeit external information about himself and his contacts and they're addresses, the Bush adimastration would be muched obliged!

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 18, 2004 02:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Welcome back Ozone, nice you see your venom is in full force as is your dream world of evil Bushisms.

IP: Logged

Saffron
unregistered
posted November 18, 2004 02:45 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
is that really true ozone? where did you hear that?

is it a joke?

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 18, 2004 02:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Awwww, com'on Pid, don't you like your own medicine being fed to ya in large spoonfuls?!

Yes Saffron, it was a joke...

...for now!

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 18, 2004 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ozone..listen to yourself MAN...you are comparing apples to oranges. What medicine are you talking about?

Dude...did you bump your head before you logged on today? Do you realize you make about as much sense and Kerry in the white house? (Now THAT was a jab). I always hate battling with you because I feel so bad afterwards - like picking on a challenged kid or something.

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 18, 2004 06:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
MAN?! DUDE?! HEY, ain't those all Liberal notions? You seem to "talk the talk", but can you "walk the walk"?

You can't seem to understand me only for those reasons that I'm into equality for all of humanity and all you want to talk about is how many people are against you in this world! And you search eagerly to find reasons why your against them, ditto for us!


IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 18, 2004 07:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wake up Ozone...Dude is from So Cal- it is beach talk...surfer talk..Oh wow...guess where I was born and raised? In Laguna Hills- where we had SURFERS being within 5 miles of the beach and all..in Orange County, CA.


Now you are putting political tags on jargon? You really do have issues..I am done talking to you - you waste my time.

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted November 18, 2004 07:26 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey ozone Burnings at the stake, huh? All those telephone poles are going to come in real handy someday.

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 18, 2004 11:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
*Did she say that she surfs at Niagara Falls? She's through with talking to me, but she's the one that addressed me first, oh well!*

Yeah TINK, it's the new religous right's way of reaching out and touching someone!

IP: Logged

Aquarian Girl
unregistered
posted November 19, 2004 08:01 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Gee, I have nothing constructive or intelligent to say about the article, so I think I will just make up malicious little blurbs I think are funny about Bush instead. Yay me!

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted November 19, 2004 09:42 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My most sincere apologies, Aquarian Girl. The next time ozone and I feel the need to trade bad jokes we will refrain from doing so on your thread. We will look elsewhere for fresh material.

You can do that, right ozone?

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 19, 2004 12:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well to be quite frank with you Aquarian Girl, everytime when you hear an intelligent reply over a post about the destain for what is going on with the "Bush ran" government from the left or the middle, doesn't excede any further to "fanning" the flames of the right, fighting tooth and nail with earnest rebuttle, to downright belittlement towards us! So, some of us have taken the initiative to take on subjects with a more light hearted approach of the matter, so if and when we get bashed(as usual), we can still "keep on smiling"!

I apologise for your displeasure Aquarian Girl.

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted November 19, 2004 12:25 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, there's one gay person... a little misleading in your subject line... eh.. but whatever.

Andrew Sullivan, a GAY Republican supported Kerry after having supporting Bush in '00.

My Gay Republican trumps your Gay Democrat

WHY I AM SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY.
Risk Management
by Andrew Sullivan

Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.26.04

The phrase "lesser of two evils" often comes up at this time every four years, but this November, I think, it's too cynical a formula. Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry can be credibly described as "evils." They have their faults, some of which are glaring. They are both second-tier politicians, thrust into the spotlight at a time when we desperately need those in the first circle of talent and vision. But they are not evil. When the papers carry pictures of 50 Iraqi recruits gunned down in a serried row, as Stalin and Hitler did to their enemies, we need have no doubt where the true evil lies. The question before us, first and foremost, is which candidate is best suited to confront this evil in the next four years. In other words: Who is the lesser of two risks?

Any reelection starts with the incumbent. Bush has had some notable achievements. He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession; he was right to push for strong federal standards for education; he was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban; he was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror. And when you see women bravely exercising their right to vote in Afghanistan, you are seeing something that would not have happened without our current president. That moral achievement can never be taken away from him.

Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval on the basis of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons and his violation of countless U.N. resolutions. I still believe that his decision was the right one. The only reason we know that Saddam was indeed bereft of such weaponry is because we removed him; we were going to have to deal with the crumbling mafia-run state in the heart of the Middle East at some point; and the objections of the French and Germans and Russians were a function primarily of mischief and corruption. And what we discovered in Iraq--from mass graves to children's prisons to the devastating effect of sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iraqis--only solidifies the moral case for removing the tyrant. The scandal of the U.N. oil-for-food program seals the argument.

At the same time, the collapse of the casus belli and the incompetent conduct of the war since the liberation point in an opposite direction. If you are going to do what the Bush administration did in putting all your chips on one big gamble; if you are going to send your secretary of state to the United Nations claiming solid "proof" of Saddam's WMDs; if you are going to engage in a major war of liberation without the cover of international consensus--then you'd better well get all your ducks in a row.

Bush--amazingly--didn't. The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. The failure to anticipate an insurgency against the coalition remains one of the biggest military miscalculations since Vietnam. And the refusal to send more troops both at the beginning and throughout the occupation remains one of the most pig-headed acts of hubris since the McNamara era. I'm amazed that more war advocates aren't incensed by this mishandling of such critical matters. But even a Bush-supporter, like my friend, Christopher Hitchens, has termed it "near-impeachable" incompetence.

I would add one more thing: Abu Ghraib. In one gut-wrenching moment, the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow. To be involved in such a vital struggle and through a mixture of negligence and arrogance to have facilitated such a fantastic propaganda victory for the enemy is just unforgivable. In a matter of months, the Bush administration lost its casus belli and its moral authority. Could it have run a worse war?

Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have September 11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending. Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

He ran for election as a social moderate. But every single question in domestic social policy has been resolved to favor the hard-core religious right. His proposal to amend the constitution to deny an entire minority equal rights under the law is one of the most extreme, unnecessary, and divisive measures ever proposed in this country. And his response to all criticism--to duck the hardest questions, to reflexively redirect attention to the flaws of his opponents, and to stay within the confines of his own self-reinforcing coterie--has made him singularly unable to adjust, to learn from mistakes, to adapt to a fast-changing world. In peacetime, that's regrettable. In wartime, it's dangerous.

I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.

So we have two risks. We have the risk of continuing with a presidency of palpable incompetence and rigidity. And we have the risk of embarking on a new administration with a man whose record as a legislator inspires little confidence in his capacity to rise to the challenges ahead. Which is the greater one?

The answer to that lies in an assessment of the future. We cannot know it; we can merely guess. My best judgment of what we will face is the following: a long and difficult insurgency on Iraq; an Iran on the brink of a nuclear capacity; a North Korea able to distract the United States at a moment's notice from the crisis in the Middle East; and an immensely complicated and difficult task of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. At home, we face a fiscal crisis of growing proportions--one that, if left alone, will destroy our future capacity to wage the war for our own survival.

Which candidate is best suited for this unappetizing ordeal? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration has shown itself impatient with and untalented at nation-building. Moreover, the toll of the war has left the United States with minimal international support, one important ingredient for the successful rebuilding of nations. If Bush is reelected, even Britain will likely shift toward withdrawal in Iraq, compounding American isolation there and making it even harder for a new Iraqi government to gain legitimacy. In the essential tasks of building support for greater international help in Iraq--financially, militarily, diplomatically--Kerry is the better choice. No, other countries cannot bail us out or even contribute much in the way of an effective military presence. But within Iraq, the impact of a more international stamp on the occupation and on the elections could help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. That battle--as much as the one on the battlefield itself--is crucial for success. I fear Bush is too polarizing, too controversial, too loathed a figure even within his own country, to pull this off.

The president says that he alone can act militarily when the danger is there; and Kerry is too weak for our current crisis. I disagree. The chance of a third forced regime change somewhere in the world in the next four years is extremely low. We don't even have the troops. Bush's comparative advantage--the ability to pull the trigger when others might balk--will be largely irrelevant. That doesn't mean it hasn't come in handy. Without Bush, Saddam would still be in power. But just because the president was suited to fight the war for the last four years doesn't mean he is suited to succeed at the more complicated and nuanced tasks of the next four. In fact, some of the very virtues that made him suited to our past needs now make him all the more unsuited to our future ones. I am still glad he was president when we were attacked. But that doesn't mean he's the right leader for the years ahead. And one of the great benefits of being a democracy at war is that we can change leaders and tactics to advance the same goals. Dictatorships are stuck with the same guy--with all his weaknesses and all the hubris that comes from running successful wars, hubris that almost always leads to fatal errors, hubris that isn't restricted to tyrants.

Does Kerry believe in this war? Skeptics say he doesn't. They don't believe he has understood the significance of September 11. They rightly point to the antiwar and anti-Western attitudes of some in his base--the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys who will celebrate a Kerry victory. I understand their worries. But they should listen to what Kerry has said. The convention was a remarkable event in that it pivoted the Democratic Party toward an uncomplicated embrace of the war on terror. Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent.

Besides, the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country that is as much theirs as anyone's. The greatest weakness of the war effort so far has been the way it has become a partisan affair. This is the fault of both sides: the Rove-like opportunists on the right and the Moore-like haters on the left. But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect. I want this war to be as bipartisan as the cold war, to bring both parties to the supreme task in front of us, to offer differing tactics and arguments and personnel in pursuit of the same cause. This is not, should not be, and one day cannot be, Bush's war. And the more it is, the more America loses, and our enemies gain.

Does Kerry believe in the power of freedom enough to bring Iraq into a democratic future? I don't know. It's my major concern with him. At the same time, it's delusional to believe that democracy can take root overnight in Iraq; and a little more humility in the face of enormous cultural difference does not strike me as unwarranted at this juncture. Besides, Kerry has endorsed democracy as a goal in Iraq and Afghanistan; he has a better grasp of the dangers of nuclear proliferation than Bush; he is tougher on the Saudis; his very election would transform the international atmosphere. What Bush isn't good at is magnanimity. But a little magnanimity and even humility in global affairs right now wouldn't do the United States a huge amount of harm.

Domestically, Kerry is clearly Bush's fiscal superior. At least he acknowledges the existence of a fiscal problem, which this president cannot. In terms of the Supreme Court, I have far more confidence in Kerry's picks than Bush's. In 2000, Bush promised moderate, able judges; for the last four years, he has often selected rigid, ideological mediocrities. Obviously, Kerry's stand against a constitutional amendment to target gay citizens is also a critical factor for me, as a gay man. But I hope it is also a factor for straight men and women, people who may even differ on the issue of marriage, but see the appalling damage a constitutional amendment would do to the social fabric, and the Constitution itself. Kerry will also almost certainly face a Republican House, curtailing his worst liberal tendencies, especially in fiscal matters. Perhaps it will take a Democratic president to ratchet the Republican Party back to its fiscally responsible legacy. I'll take what I can get.

And when you think of what is happening in the two major parties, the case for a Kerry presidency strengthens. If Bush wins, the religious right, already dominant in Republican circles, will move the GOP even further toward becoming a sectarian, religious grouping. If Kerry loses, the antiwar left will move the party back into the purist, hate-filled wilderness, ceding untrammeled power to a resurgent, religious Republicanism--a development that will prove as polarizing abroad as it is divisive at home. But if Bush loses, the fight to recapture Republicanism from Big Government moralism will be given new energy; and if Kerry wins, the center of the Democratic party will gain new life. That, at least, is the hope. We cannot know for sure.

But, in every election, we decide on unknowables. When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be. But we do the best we can in elections, with limited information and fallible judgment. I should reiterate: I do not hate this president. I admire him in many ways--his tenacity, his vision of democracy, his humor, his faith. I have supported him more than strongly in the last four years--and, perhaps, when the dangers seemed so grave, I went overboard and willfully overlooked his faults because he was the president and the country was in danger. I was also guilty of minimizing the dangers of invading Iraq and placed too much faith, perhaps, in the powers of the American military machine and competence of the Bush administration. Writers bear some responsibility too for making mistakes; and I take mine. But they bear a greater responsibility if they do not acknowledge them and learn. And it is simply foolish to ignore what we have found out this past year about Bush's obvious limits, his glaring failures, his fundamental weakness as a leader. I fear he is out of his depth and exhausted. I simply do not have confidence in him to navigate the waters ahead skillfully enough to avoid or survive the darkening clouds on the horizon.

Kerry? I cannot know for sure. But in a democracy, you sometimes have to have faith that a new leader will be able to absorb the achievements of his predecessor and help mend his failures. Kerry has actually been much more impressive in the latter stages of this campaign than I expected. He has exuded a calm and a steadiness that reassures. He is right about our need for more allies, more prudence, and more tactical discrimination in the war we are waging. I cannot say I have perfect confidence in him, or that I support him without reservations. But not to support anyone in this dangerous time is a cop-out. So give him a chance. In picking the lesser of two risks, we can also do something less dispiriting. We can decide to pick the greater of two hopes. And even in these dour days, it is only American to hope.

Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at TNR.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFINfAm4eR7PMnY1tkQ2m%3D%3D

IP: Logged

Aquarian Girl
unregistered
posted November 20, 2004 01:41 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
My most sincere apologies, Aquarian Girl. The next time ozone and I feel the need to trade bad jokes we will refrain from doing so on your thread. We will look elsewhere for fresh material.

Oh please, save your drama. If you want to trade bad jokes, feel free, I'm not stopping you.

But by the same token, if you want to trade bad jokes on "my" or any other thread, don't be surprised when I roll my eyes (for real, not just the little smiley!) and lament the lack of constructive replies.

The "joke" was dumb anyway. Just my opinion! You are free to give yours too

I'm not trying to kick anyone off "my" thread, carry on!

IP: Logged

Aquarian Girl
unregistered
posted November 20, 2004 01:45 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, actually LS there are several who were interviewed for the article, and a significant percentage decided to vote for Bush, despite the vast majority of gay people voting for Kerry.

I just thought it was interesting to read WHY some would choose to go Republican at all, when the Dems seem to pander to them.

So... my gay Republicans trump your gay Republican who sold out and voted Democrat anyway, lol

Does that still make him a gay Republican? I think he switched teams now. He's not special anymore. He's another gay Kerry supporter. Dime a dozen! Bah!

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted November 20, 2004 05:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh please, Aquarian Girl, stop your immature rudeness. Learn how to accept an apology like an adult. And while you're at it, if you don't like my posts or ozone's do us all a favor and don't read them. So sorry we all didn't come pouring into your feebleminded thread with comments worthy of your super sharp wit.

BTW Rolling you eyes is neither constructive nor intelligent - try again.

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 20, 2004 05:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
She's just another Repuke that finds courtesy just another form of weakness I suppost TINK, I guess the rudeness and the put downs is the only way that the conservitives can identify themselves, it must be a childhood thing!

I wonder though(since she IS a gay basher), maybe she honors this guy for being a "switch hitter"!

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted November 20, 2004 06:02 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another bad joke!
Careful ozone, we wouldn't want to upset Aquarian Girl's sensitive feelings. Now cut it out and say something constructive and intelligent.

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 20, 2004 06:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Something constructive and intelligent".

Will that work?

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted November 20, 2004 06:20 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey, that's good, ozone! Now you've got the hang of it. Go, ozone, go!

We can only cross our fingers and hope to hell it lives up to Aquarian Girl's lofty expectations.

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 20, 2004 06:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For Repukes "hELL" and "live" in one sentence seems about right!

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted November 20, 2004 06:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wanted to make her feel comfortable

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted November 20, 2004 06:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
...but this is GU TINK, are you sure that you know what you are doing?

Just tell her to lay her head on that lava rock over there and that she will be fine!

IP: Logged


This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a