not much, other than the fact that while john forbes kerry volunteered to go to vietnam, your precious was a male cheerleader, yet people like tj will call kerry a coward and hold junior up as the epitome of red blooded american manliness. ive seen tj call edwards effeminate, yet he supports a guy who was a MALE CHEERLEADER! it just seems a tad hypocritical to me. since when was it "manly" to be a male cheerleader? no offense to you if you were a male cheerleader! because it is funny. it just seems a tad hypocritical when you run your campaign on a platform of discriminating against homosexuals and allow a gay male hooker to visit the white house over 200 times, plant him in the white house press corp to field you soft-ball questions and go around hugging, giving goo-goo eyes and affectionately patting him on the head. and i do not think bush is threatened at all by contact w/ gay men - on the contrary, he looks quite comfortable around them. link? and are they using "outing" as a political tool or as an exposure of hypocrisy?
Look at some of the google ads this discussion has spawned... ..and last I checked, Bush didn't make his National Guard service the centerpiece of his campaign, the way Forbes Kerry "REPORTING FOR DUTY" did. Hence the criticism is valid.
National Guard? No, he couldn't because then the story wouldn't have been kept on the backburner. However, he did run on this...
Pedophilia is apparently what Mark Foley, R-FL, resigned from the House for, given his interest in minors. That is why I said "Craig and Foley" I don't know what connection it has with gays, maybe you can go down to the bathhouse and let me know since you are so enlightened, Princess. And you can lay some groundwork for recruiting for the logcabin Republicans by explaining why you are on your hands and knees in front of GWB, despite his attempts to constitutionally enthrone anti gay discrimination, and how this makes you a better person becausee the meanie democrats have the audacity to call out Republican gays and gay pedophiles (like Mark Foley, R-FL) for being giant douches for subsisting on and institutionalizing anti-gay discrimination. And yes, I have in fact given you quite a rough hump in this thread. You are enlightened so I know you don't mind.
oh, enlighten me little spawn, and list the pro-gay positions of the democratic party over the past 8 years?
I've seen this movie before. The next part is where basso tells us he's the most pro-gay rights poster on the board by virtue of his long, reliable history of making references to hot sweaty man sex. Mitt Romney made similar claims when he ran for governor. Now he's running radio ads calling for a Constitutional amendment in "defense of marriage."
Well, aside from having openly gay congressman who are not forced to resign in disgrace due to the rank hypocrisy of participating in institutional *** bashing, yet being closeted gay themselves - I would say NOT supporting or introducing a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS as the Republicans did in 2004 (endorsed by George W. Bush himself) - and again in 2006 - to get keep their corrupt, incompetent paws on the whitehouse is probably quite pro-gay. Even if it is not "pro gay", it is not as hatefully anti-gay as the GOP to whom you report on a nightly basis in a leather gimp costume. This argument is so godawfully stupid, I just enjoy the resulting splatter.
Sam, something has definitely put you on the defensive. You just look bad at this point. Save some face and just admit you've been humiliated.
The only person who should feel humiliated is the person who's been name calling for four years on this board who started a thread about childish name calling. or is that irony?
so you were a hillary supporter until she called cheney darth vader? that was the straw that broke the camels back for ya?
look, i won this thread in post 4 and then closed it in post 7. why are yall still posting? LOCK HER UP!
Which of the Democratic candidates are in JENA, LOUISIANA tonight, supporting the struggle? or are the campaigning as usual, taking the black vote for granted?