Who Hates Fags More:Clinton or Bush

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

so clinton signed the defense of marriage act, which denied beneifts to thousands of queer families federally.
bush is pushing for a constituonal (sp) ammendment so that queers cannot make traditional families.

clinton was smart, and savy...doing it for politcal gain, but did he believe it ?
is bush only baptist for the same reasons ?

― anthony, Friday, 4 June 2004 19:41 (twenty-one years ago)

realizing that the nuclear family is not nessc. a trad family

― anthony, Friday, 4 June 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

From what I've heard/read, Bush believes in his religious precepts (re: Evangelicalism).

― Lazer Guided Mellow Leee (Leee), Friday, 4 June 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.sun-inet.or.jp/~mlbddf/bush.jpg http://ariustile.com/ariuscatalog/fl090092.jpg

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 4 June 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act mostly so Bob Dole wouldn't have that as a wedge issue in the election; he also signed it on a Friday night, after the press corps had already gone home. Which makes it hard to separate his personal beliefs on the issue from pure political expediency. Which is pretty much the defining characteristic of Clinton anyway.

One thing you can say for Bush: sometimes he feels like the first president since Nixon who you can assume truly believes in even the most ridiculous of his stances.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 4 June 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

which denied beneifts to thousands of queer families federally

benefits they already had? That there is no difference between Clinton's taking a half-measure favored by his opponents to prevent their accession to power and Bush's proposal of the full measure sought by those opponents upon gaining it? That there is no difference between passing a law of questionable Constitutionality upon an issue not yet resolved by even a significant number of lower courts and proposing a Constitutional amendment that would preemptively bind the highest court?

Do you believe that anyone skeptical about the societal impact of gay marriage "hates fags"?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 4 June 2004 20:01 (twenty-one years ago)

nabisco say what you might about the parallels between Nixon in Bush in terms of paranoid personal style, but politically I think President Bush makes Richard Nixon look like Friedrich Engels. And in that lies the core perversity of Bush's presidency: it makes us long for some features of even his worst predecessors.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 4 June 2004 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

the answer is jon williams

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Friday, 4 June 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Sure, R, I just find it funny: we go through a long and seemingly irritating stretch when the relationship between a president's policies and beliefs isn't even deemed interesting enough to think about -- and then we get concrete proof that a leader with clearly-stated Beliefs is in no sense an advantage.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 4 June 2004 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Amen sir. Now if only someone in Congress would figure all this out and draw up the articles of impeachment.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 4 June 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

who, Denny Hastert?

(my post is missing some "do you believe"s)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 4 June 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.smokempire.com/catalog/images/dunhill_logo.gif

Bush hasn't met the right one, is all

― Morley Timmons (Donna Brown), Saturday, 5 June 2004 02:13 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.