Story

The father-of-three said: "I had sexual intercourse with perhaps three or four - I don't remember the exact number - women at different times."

Poppy, Chimp, and the whole Bush gang must be so proud.

[ November 25, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Well isn't that special ! I think he would make great friends with Roger Clinton.

This reminds me of the Reagan family values Presidency. He didn't talk to his son, daughter or ex-wife BUT he was a family guy.

I think thats called do as I say, not as I do.

Isn't this a private matter? Isn't this just for the couple? Aren't we being prurient busybodies for even writing about this? Isn't that what you folks cried indignantly about during the various sordid Clinton revelations? Of course it was. Such hypocrisy, methinks......

Of course it's a private matter, but since right-wingers are always claiming that homosexuality is the greatest threat to hetero marriage, I think it should be pointed out from time to time that the real greatest threat to straights' marriages are WHORISH STRAIGHT PEOPLE. And since Neil's brother W is such a Christian moralist, I hope he thinks before he utters a(nother) word about the sanctity of hetero marriage.

Methinks that was very well said.

When should it be pointed out? Should it have been pointed out about the prior occupant of the White House? After all, he liked to portray himself as a Christian as well - in fact he made great show about seeking spiritual counsel in the Oval Office after his well-publicized "private marital issues." By all means, continue to tie yourself in all the rhetorical knots you want, it's actually somewhat amusing. Unfortunately, none of the indignant sputtering changes the fact that this is the same kind of craven political opportunism that the left self-righteously claims to abhor when it's practiced by the other side.

This would only be a story if it were W's marriage that we were talking about - he is in the public eye. Neil's tale is just more fodder for the tabloids, and as long as W. isn't defending him, I don't think it is a story the media should be following.

Just put Neil up next to Billy Carter and Roger Clinton - it's good to know even the upper crust has their white trash relatives.

Not only that, but the Religious Right (I know, I was there) made such a stink about how Carter's quirky relatives proved that he wasn't fit to be president ... even though Carter was (as far as we know) monogamously married to the mother of his kids.

These were the same people who sold Reagan as "pro-life" even though he'd signed legalized abortion into law in California years before Roe v. Wade (never mind whether you agree with it, the point is image vs. reality).

Interesting report in the Houston Chronicle about Neil Bush's romps in Asia. Why is the brother of the President getting $2 million in stock from a firm backed by the son of the former Chinese President? If this were Roger Clinton or one of Hillary's brothers we wouldn't hear the end of it.

The full article is at Neil Bush deals detailed in divorce records

That's really rich, \"craven political opportunism\". The Republicans have elevated \"craven political opportunism\" to an art form. Just two recent examples: the Jessica Lynch lie-fest and Shrub posing on the aircraft carrier, even though he was a draft-dodging AWOL in the National Guard.

Typically right-wing bait-and-switch there.

And this story is especially \"ironic\" in light of Shrub's call for an end to human trafficking. A noble cause, to be sure, but somewhat undercut by the fact that if it's Americans that are the exploiters, it doesn't seem to matter as much: Your tax dollars hard at work.

Speaking of tax dollars and "hard work," another of the Right's hobbyhorses, it does appear that Neil is getting paid a hell of a lot--$15,000 every three months--for not a lot of work. But then this is the same loser who took US TAXPAYERS for a $1 billion ride with Silverado.

Yahoo!: Bush Brother Business Deals Detailed in Divorce

Does he own any flamingos?

I couldn't help but think of Billy Carter, already mentioned by at least one other lister. Just how well would an investment in Billy Beer have performed?

If the asking prices are any indication, better than Pets.com stock, but not as well as the Pets.com sock puppet. Bids themselves are hard to find, so don't rely on any of them for your retirement.

Well, of course it is! It's all part of the gay agenda. when are you ever going to learn that? wink

From the David Brooks article linked to in the Mass. Gay Marriage Legal thread: To tune of Bowie's Rock n Roll Suicide:

Woo, woo, woah
You're a spiritual suicide

Poor Neil, committing spiritual suicide like that over and over.

[ November 26, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

It's damn good to see those Bushies are maintaining the sanctity of marriage!

When the innocent are dragged into the mud with the likes of Neil Bush I have to speak out - the Pets.com sock puppet is an innocent victim.

Excerpted from the Reuters story this morning.

>The Bush divorce, completed in April after 23 years of marriage, was prompted in part by Bush's relationship with another woman. He admitted in the deposition that he previously had sex with several other women while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong at least five years ago.

>The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.

>"Mr Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.

>"It was very unusual," Bush said.

Does this Bush brother really think he's so sexy woman would show up at his hotel room for sex, without someone footing the bill for their sexual services?

Sometimes the silliness of straight men, and their illusions of attractiveness, is so unusual I want to puke.

Does anyone know if W has made any statements about his brother's sexual activities in Asia?

I saw an interview with Barbara Bush a few weeks ago and she made a special point of mentioning that George W. did not like to talk about Neil's personal life. I had no idea what she was talking about and thought it was the strangest comment. Ah, now I see. A little preemptive no comment.

Trash. I think the difference is really quite immense between someone like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton who are adulterors, but make no pretense to preach against it, and people like Neil Bush, Newt Gingrich, and the guy who led the impeachment of Clinton, who preach family values ad nauseum and cheat on their wives and lie, etc. Gingrich is really the worst in history that I have heard of. Serving your wife divorce papers in the hospital as she lays in bed recovering from cancer surgery. Beneath contempt. And just so he could marry his mistress. And now she's divorced him too. The cause was his infidelity, needless to say.

We all mess up, but the hypocrisy is the deal breaker for me. Trash.

Bob Barr and Henry Hyde (all of the family values set in the GOP, no less) were leaders in the Clinton impeachment, and both Barr and Hyde especially inveighed against Clinton's behavior, the immorality, the traducement of the young woman (paramour, Lewinsky), etc. And you know what? Both were adulterers! Hyde, a particularly sanctimonious old barrow, went so far as to try and explain away his whorishness. The stench of their hypocrisy still nauseates me, though only Hyde is still around to sign his name to the new anti-gay marriage bill.

Then there's the GOP posterboys Bob Livingston and Tim Hutchinson. Hutchinson also ranted on and on about Clinton, to the cheers of his supporters, only to later reveal that he was leaving his wife and violating his Christian ideals to hook up with another woman...a young staffer! But it was waaaayyy different than Clinton, just like Rush's drugging was different than the drug abusers he denounced, because....

I tell you...what shot does any homo or trans have on screwing up the idea of marriage, let alone the institution itself, with these folks around? They're textbook examples of "spiritual" death and the "assembly line of sensations" that David Brooks was raving about in his supposedly pro-gay article. So spiritually dead they cannot even admit what big-mouthed liars they are, but then that's par for the party....

[ November 26, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]