Bush wholly supports the 121 year old Texas law which makes sodomy between 2 people of the same gender a misdemeanor (it is legal for members of the opposite sex to engage in such acts). If you don't think that it is ever enforced, you are wrong. In 1998 two men were arrested by Harris County deputies for performing this act in their own home. This case brought about a judicial ruling saying the sodomy law is illegal for being discriminatory but now that ruling is being reviewed and will most likely be overturned. Bush and Gore DO NOT share the same opinion on homosexuality. Gore is against job and housing discrimation against gays. Bush would allow it. Gore is for hate crime laws which include sexual orientation, Bush is not. Gore is for civil unions to provide rights to gay partners. Bush is against that completely. Gore is for allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Bush is not. Please explain how you feel their positions on this issue are "exactly the same" As for Clinton signing the DOMA, I don't think he had much choice as the Republicans made such a big public issue of it. The President is on the cover of the gay newsmagazine The Advocate and he is interviewed. Please read the article and see what real compassion is about http://www.planetout.com/news/feature.html?sernum=159 [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited October 26, 2000).]
Clinton and Gore support the Defense of Marriage Act. If you're going to argue that they do so because of political pressure, I can do the same for Bush. Why would he rise up against a law that's been on the books for 100+ years like you say? Do you know how long the Texas legislature has been controlled by Democrats? If they cared, they could've created some 'political pressure' of their own, and gotten the law changed. Obviously, there is no public outrage about this law, so there's no reason to fault Bush here. Both candidates have the same view (at least right now) on the status of gay marriages. Just because Bush doesn't want to make special laws to cover sexual preference, doesn't mean he's against gays. You say he would allow discrimmination against gays, that is laughable. Is there a law against discrimmination against fat people? Against ugly people? Against Jazz fans? That doesn't mean Bush supports discrimmination against those groups. The same goes for hate crimes. Bush is against all crime. Just because Gore wants to make his constituents happy by supporting a 'hate crime' law, doesn't mean he cares more. The military thing is ridiculous. "Don't ask don't tell" is about one of the best things Clinton has done if you ask me. There's no discrimmination there. If you want to start following military law, Clinton would've been out of office so long ago it's not even funny. I've already addressed this. Clinton always likes to take so much credit for the things he signs but has nothing to do with. I guess this is different? I haven't read this article yet, but I plan to. I guess it all comes down to whether you believe what the man says. I for one don't put too much stock into anything he says. The man's term is almost up...there are almost no political ramifications to anything he says right now. Of course he's going to want to sound appealing to everybody.
rim the bod -- You did catch my sarcasm, right? I know hp would've caught it. Maybe you're not smarter than him after all. Oh, and I was a business major, and if someone had bothered to teach me the SAT in HS, I might've been able to get in to a much better school (although UT ain't too shabby). (This is related to another thread...I thought I'd kill 2 birds with one stone. I'm too lazy I guess)
Geez freak. I have to admit, that you are a master of sarcasm. I don't know why, maybe it's your writing style or your biting one-liners, but whenever I read a lot of your posts the tone of the "voice" in my head is a mean one. Does that make any sense? I'll try to stop doing that. BTW, if rimmy is anyone's protege, he is mine. He just can't bring himself to admit it.
Wow! I didn’t realize we had so many liberals on the BBS. You people from UT are not only paying too much attention to that liberal pap that Mollie Ivins writes in the Statesman, but you’re starting to believe it as well. Unfortunately, that’s about par for the course at university these days. I don’t always agree with Jeff Balke on a lot of issues, other than his unselfish efforts to Save Our Rockets, but at least with Jeff, what you see is what you get. Not so with many of the posters who continue to trash a decent man. It’s amazing that you don’t even blink an eye when some unproven rookie is offered a couple of million bucks (which is more money than you’ll make in a lifetime), yet will get upset when Gov. Bush wants to give you back some of your hard earned money in the form of a tax cut. Bush isn’t taking the food out of the mouths of the poor, he thinks the American worker (regardless of income level) deserves a break. Personally, I’d rather have more of my money; the government certainly doesn’t know how to effectively use it. In fact, they can even keep track of it ($700 million unaccounted for in the Education Department, $5 billion misplaced at Agriculture, $59 billion lost at HUD through accounting errors. Bush wants to let you younger workers invest 2% of your Social Security monies in a private account, that will surely earn more than the pittance the SSA invests for you. And guess what? If you die right at retirement time, what does your family get for all those dollars you and your employer have contributed to Social Security for the 30-40 years you’ve been working? Less than half the normal benefit to a surviving spouse, otherwise nothing. With the Bush plan, that money is yours, and you can leave it to your family or whomever, your choice. I envy you young men and women – you could conceivably build a six, even seven figure nest egg is 30-40 years. algore and Alf have been trashing Texas lately. That really upsets me, as well as many other Texans. At the same time, the Clinton-Gore administration turns around and tells you everything is great in Texas, because of their efforts: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Accomplishments/statenames.html. If you’re not from Texas, you can find out how Clinton-Gore have “saved” your state. And if you believe that, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Amarillo I’d like to sell you. Algore is an inveterate prevaricator (that’s Yankee for liar). Check out www.gorewillsayanything.com. Yeah, I know the site’s run by the RNC, but do you believe that the stuff you’re reading about Bush is from unbiased sources? If you can document anything on this site not to be true, I’ll gladly apologize publicly to you. And the very latest charade: the blatantly political ad by the NAACP on Bush and the “Hate Crime” bill. The NAACP has wrongly taken advantage of their 501c3 status to pimp for the Democrats. Not only is it unfair (the Donkeys don’t worry about negativity if it serves their purposes), but it is incorrect and misleading. Bush won’t support the federal bill, sponsored by pillar of virtue, Ted Kennedy, because the bill does not include capital punishment. The way the Hate Crimes bill is written, you can be held liable for a felony is you inadvertently make a negative statement about someone. We already have laws to handle any criminal activity you can think of, with appropriate punishments for violators. Of course, you can always fall back on the inexperience of Bush. But, hey, what did Clinton bring to the table? He was governor of a small, some say backward, Southern state, and now he’s a statesman? That argument doesn’t wash. ------------------ Houston Clutch fans - don't forget to vote YES for the Arena!
Jeff -- I'm mildly insulted that you think that someone of my political persuasion only sees value in things that have a monetary value. I don't think you could be any wronger. Ultimately, what conservatives value is liberty. The ability to keep the money you work for. The ability to start a business without excessive regulation. The ability to call the shots in your life. Liberalism leads to socialism and government control. That's what conservatives wish to avoid. As for environmental issues...I am for a Teddy Roosevelt style of conservation...we should seek to conserve nature for the enjoyment of man...not for the idea of a sacredness of a tree or a bird. If you think that makes me evil, I'm sorry. But costing people jobs and thus their livelihoods in the name of environmentalism is not, in my opinion, a good idea. I won't go into the whole separation of powers problem that I believe exists with environmental regulations nor the trampling of very fundamental private property rights as well. Someone earlier on talked about how Republicans were the stupid ones and many of the red-necked hicks wouldn't pass an IQ test. I'm just wondering...would the members of the NAACP who spoke out against Lieberman as "dangerous" because he is Jewish fall into that same category?? This is so ridiculous!!! This is the same kind of paintbrush Al Gore and Democrats have been trying to swish across Republicans for years now. They're losing more and more of their credibility...especially when you consider that Bush's cabinet will probably be more diverse than Gore's would and Bush is likely to nominate (to the best of my knowledge) the first Latin American to the Supreme Court. Yeah...and Republicans want to beat up old women, starve babies and they hate everyone who isn't white. Whatever ------------------
Well it is illegal to discriminate against people based on color, race, religion, gender, disability, age or national origin. I don't see any good reason why sexual orientation shouldn't be included in that list. And don't give me that crap about it being a choice because religion is a choice too. It may be "laughable" to you but it's not funny to those who can't get a job or a home because of someone else's bigotry.
outlaw -- all I'm saying is that it's an issue that reasonable people have disagreements on. It doesn't mean Bush approves of discrimmination.
Awww shucks! Time to kick back with a cold one and watch sports or sumpin! But...(RMT sez semi-seriously), you really need to worry when your posts begin resembling LHutz's!!! ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
outlaw -- please explain to me how Bush supports the criminalization of homosexual conduct?? Just because the Harris County District Attorney's Office chose to prosecute those individuals for that crime doesn't mean that Bush had anything to do with it at all. By the way...when one says it's never enforced it's not really that strong of an argument to point out this one example. It was such a newsworthy event because it is so rare to see one prosecuted under these laws. They're antiquated and falling by the wayside. The law had not been enforced for decades as I understand it before this one. So stop getting all up in arms over this issue. It's not worth fighting because there's not enough there to fight. And if this is how you choose a presidential candidate I'm BEGGING for that IQ test! ------------------
Madmax Aren't we supposed to pick the candidates we want in office by how we think they will affect our lives? And of course it would be political suicide to come right out and support the criminalization of Homosexuals, but actions speak louder than words. Bush has stated numours times that he will not support sexual orientation added to hate crimes bills. He has stated that he feels homosexuals have no place in the Boy Scouts, He has stated that he would not support homosexual marriages. While this is not "support for criminalization of homosexuals", it defiantly shows where his allegiance lies. ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
Why do Republicans label people who disagree with them as "liberals"? I'd venture to say that a lot of people here are moderates; some just don't feel the need for a huge tax cut, when the money could go towards paying down the debt, improving education, medical care, etc. Also, you're deluding yourself, if you think Shrub (i.e. little Bush) is any more a "decent man" than any other politician. He's based his entire career, business and political, on whom his father was. Umm, what does an overpaid rookie have to do with a budget surplus? Anyway, why is it that Republicans always tout a surplus as "some of your hard earned money", but never say that the national debt is "your irresponsibly aquired debt"? Do you know how much of "your hard earned money" just goes to paying the interest on the debt? Let's put things in perspective. The national debt is approximately $5.5 trillion and there are 276 million people in the U.S. That's about $20,000 per person. The point is that there are better things that we can do with surpluses that give irresponsible tax cuts. Anyway, many political analysts (like the theoretically nonpartisan folks at ABC News) have said that Shrub's combination of tax cuts and spending will more likely create deficits that Gore's spending plan. Okay, let's review how the present social security system works. The money that is taken out of your check every week for social security all goes to paying for those people that are collecting money right now. All of that money is tied up, so how and where is this money he's promising you come from? What Shrub is likely proposing is another hidden tax cut. You can take another 2% of your annual income (federal income tax money), to invest in the stock market (apparently, he hasn't been watching the market trends for the last six months or so). Essentially, you'll still be paying for social security in addition to your 2% kickback. If you're getting your feelings hurt by Gore pointing out problems in the Texas record, then you should really be getting bent out of shape by Shrub attacking America . It's political strategy to point out the shortcomings of your opponents political record; and yes, Texas does have some problems (every state does). It's foolish to take it personally. And George Bush is full of $#!+ (that's Texan for "full of $#!+). Here's an equally unbiased (note sarcasm) site of many of Bush's inaccuracies and outright lies. If you don't want to vote for a liar, then you'd probably never have the opportunity to vote. Well, one thing Bush will bring to the table that Clinton didn't are the puppet strings attached to the hands of the Republican leaders. Anyway, I'm less concerned about his political inexperience and more concerned with the fact that he's an idiot ------------------
I read somewhere, and don't know why I can't remember where, that Greenspan, while not exactly coming out and saying it, thinks that Gore's tax cut plan would be much less risky than Bush's. I still think that this debate should be silenced. People are getting bent out of shape over two tax plans that won't even happen. ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
How did we go from basketball fans to mortal political enemies? Max: I don't think you are evil. I don't believe in the existence of evil so it would be impossible for me to think that of you. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Madmax - you have your pet issues, I have mine. You can call me stupid all you want but don't tell me what I can and can't talk about in here. Bush has promised to veto any attempt to repeal Texas' sodomy law, which he defends as "a symbolic gesture of traditional values." I consider that support of criminalization, wouldn't you? Even if the actual law itself isn't enforced regularly, it is a basis for further discrimination. There is a bill that prevents gays from adopting children in Texas that is based on the sodomy law. These 2 men will have this on their criminal records which may prevent them from being hired. Some companies don't care what the offense is, they don't want to hire anyone with a criminal history whatsoever. Maybe they'll even be listed under the Public Sex Offenders Database and it'll be almost impossible for them to rent an apartment. Is that fair? Even if this is "just one case" as you said, I can't believe you aren't more outraged by it since you supposedly value liberty so much. How would you feel if you were arrested for making love to your wife in your own home? [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited October 27, 2000).]
Just thought I'd ressurect this thread, because some of the more recent additions to The Complete Bushisms are equally funny and scary. Here they are: "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."—St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000 "They said, 'You know, this issue doesn't seem to resignate with the people.' And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn't matter to me, because I stand for doing what's the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work."—Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000 "Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you go out and help us turn out the vote, after we've convinced the good Americans to vote, and while they're at it, pull that old George W. lever, if I'm the one, when I put my hand on the Bible, when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not—to uphold the laws of the land."—Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2000 ------------------
My current favorite is in my signature. ------------------ "Priorities is our values"-Dubya at campaign stop in San Jose on 11/1/00 visit www.swirve.com
You ain't just whistling Dixie, brother. I'll be glad when all this is over so we can go back to arguing over the inside-outside game vs. isolation plays! ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
