This is cute. There's this little tiff between Jonah Goldberg at the National Review and Andrew Sullivan about the latter's ever-changing position on Bush on his blog. Sullivan was a big Bush supporter until the amendment. But, even after the amendment, readers of Sullivan's website notice that he equivocates a fair amount. He goes on and on about Bush being the only one who can be "trusted" to fight the war on terror, while gutting him for not being fiscally conservative. You get the impression that if you think the war is important enough (and for Sullivan, at least on his blog, it's the only thing that really matters), you should pick Bush, even if you have misgivings about the amendment proposal, fiscal insolvency and other matters.

Anyway, Goldberg busts him by noting that while Sullivan is coy on his website about his position on Bush, he has a decidedly absolutist position when writing in The Advocate, where he flat out says "I can’t endorse [Bush] this fall"--something he had yet to say on his blog.

Sullivan was forced to respond. He got it together today on his website, where he finally concedes that "no self-respecting gay person could vote for Bush."

The cutest/saddest thing about this bit of nothing is how on his popular and influential blog, Sullivan won't link his Advocate pieces "as a rule" because he gets too many complaints from his readers when he writes about gay issues. He explains his closeting of his Advocate pieces as "pieces [that] are written for a specific audience." Aww, how generous of him to spare his website's readers.

Here's the Goldberg note that started the tiff, and here's Sullivan's response.

[ June 17, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Was Sullivan really a Bush suporter? He was definitely a supporter of the war, but was questioning Bush fiscally before the war started. Didn't he endorse Gore in the last election?

One thing I simply don't understand is how many gay conservatives act like they were caught off guard by Bush's support for the FMA. Anyone who made even the most cursory glance at his career as governor of Texas should have known that he would support it.

Side note: Jonah Goldberg's notion that realism is a way of looking at the world that is inimical to security is just plain bizarre.

Nope, Sullivan voted for Bush. He says he did it as an anti-Gore vote, and that he really wanted McCain. And he championed the war in Iraq, and Bush's war on terror...until recently (his position now is that the admin has cocked things up).

Anyway, here are some interesting comments on Lucuianne Golberg's site (yes, that Lucianne) who happens to be Jonah's mother.

As one poster put it, "there is an apparent conflict between the Advocate article, with its leftist gay audience, or his blog, with its more independent/conservative audience, and it's reasonable to surmise that he is playing to each audience and doesn't want to loose either."

The anti-gay stuff is funny: "When Andrew gets on a gay issue, his progesterone starts kicking in and he rants like a vindictive woman. "Hell hath no fury like a She-man scorned""

[ June 17, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

The quote from Lucianne Goldberg says so much more about her than it does about Andrew Sullivan.

I agree with Sullivan's statement about self respecting gay people. I simply cannot understand how a gay man or woman could vote for Bush when he advocates enshrining in our founding civic document the notion that gay people are not equal. You can agree with him about taxes, about defense, about the war in Iraq, that's all fine, but how on earth can you vote for someone who doesn't even see you as an equal before the law? The ability to treat people humanely is a base requirement in a president. Any gay person who votes for Bush will wind up sacrificing his self worth and soul (and those of us all) for a few bucks in tax refunds.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The comments from Lucianne.com are from readers responding to the Jonah piece on NRO. These are the ones Sullivan points out, noting that "no wonder gay conservatives have a hard time feeling at home there."

They were blinded by Shrub's compassionatism.

When the choice comes downs to George W Bush, John Kerry and Ralph Nader- I'll gladly pull the GW Bush lever. Kerry doesn't get it on taxes, on business incentives to create jobs (good jobs not just more union hacks). Kerry doesn't get on education- because he's owned by the Teachers's union that are all technophobes. (Ever seen a mid-school teacher or grade school teacher carry and open a wireless laptop in their classroom?-they all afraid that kids will know more than them-Great precident to set). Fear is main part of Kerry's campaign. Fear that there won't Social Security in 20 years- Dems have been spreading that fear for 40 years. Fear that tech jobs are going oversees- these are all the low paying call center jobs- okay put them in Mississippi or Arkansas is that a better solution? Two states that could use $12.00/hr jobs but guess what their past Governors and State Legislatures had not embraced technolgy so there skill level of understanding of the "locals" for these call centers jobs is not there. Teachers in those state have held back PC developement and computer training. I work at Msft and we wouldn't consider a call center in AR or MS for those reasons -what bus the workers in from Illinois?

So GWB is way off on FMA. I agree. I'm not going to be a sigle issue litmus test voter. (it doesn't work on abortion, environment or nuclear arsenal) I'm not happy with GWB on FMA but if Kerry wins my 401k and ESSP suffers. Then I need to look forward to Social Security surviving. I have no faith that SS will be around and even worthwhile in 15 years. Too many babyboomers and too many free loaders are now be included. Too manny liberal politicians that now want to include payees who never contributed or they will let them take out more than they put in.

The answer is no TAKE -the answer is give. What does GWB give to the us vs what John Kerry takes from the US.

The bottomline is also that GWB has made me feel safe again about the US and US travel. Carter and Clinton never got it. The US was the patsy of the world under them. I see the same scenario for Kerry. Oh let's go ask the UN for their opinion.

It's George W Bush on November 2nd.

I'll smile when I mark my punchcard.
wink wink

[ June 17, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Eastsidewa ]

Eastsidewa I can't believe you say you feel safer about travelling! That is just nonsense. I have been wanting to travel for a while now and wouldn't dare go overseas at this time. As for the other points you make...I feel sorry for you about those, too.

I've lurked on this board for a while, but this thread has prompted me to make my first posting. Frankly, no gay person I've spoken to who supports Bush has disproven Sullivan's statement (and there are a few gay conservatives where I go to school). Now I can understand if you're not a single issue voter. But when the issue is as big as fundamental human rights, you can't just discount Bush's stance on FMA as simply part of an array of views that you are otherwise generally aligned with. I can respect a gay conservative who decides not to vote instead of supporting Kerry--many Log Cabin folk have suggested this stance. But to throw your weight behind someone who sees you as less deserving of marriage rights--this screams self loathing. But if you think your 401(k) is worth more protection, so be it.

I hope gay Bush supporters give up this cult of normality. So many seem afraid of their homosexuality that they're willing to take political stances that are inimical to their own ultimate happiness (and btw, they probably also say they're straight-acting and don't go to gay bars). I'm not saying that you should support leftist beliefs. But a person with integrity has to draw a line somewhere, at least for his/her own protection.

Ah ha and the 401K? I lost most of mine when Bush came into office. So tell me about that again....

Neptune, you hit the nail on the head. Anyone who proclaims "i'm out to some; not to others" is in the closet. There is no "kinda" out. Either you're openly gay and proud of it, or in the closet and accordingly ashamed of yourself to some extent.

There are times when this might be an option, but this isn't one of them. The candidates' positions are too different, and this election is much too important. Frankly, anyone who can't decide between the two needs to learn to make a decision.

And anyone who doesn't vote in this election ought to have their citizenship revoked and be deported to some unpleasant dictatorship.

I'm not enthiused about Kerry at all. see my "why Kerry sucks a sa candidate" thread. But still, for this republican (me), sitting out and not voting is not an option.

W Bush and the Cheney White House have managed to f**k up so much while in office, they can not be allowed to remain. and as such, I must vote for Kerry. This is not so much PRO Kerry as it is ANTI Bush. sitting out will be tantamount to a vote for Bush. that can not stand.

If Shrub gets re-designated El Presidente :mad: , they won't need to be deported... we'll have that dictatorship right here.

Where are you getting this stuff? Truly? We've lost over 2.3 MILLION jobs since W took office--the worst record since Herbert Hoover. Given the current rate of population increase, to make up for the 3-year job loss, it would take till at least 2007-8 at the current rate of job creation under W! Certainly Kerry couldn't do any worse--and under Democratic presidents we usually do a lot better. Even Carter had a better record on this account than Dumbya!

On top of this, unions are at their lowest levels ever--they were effectively gutted during St. Raygun's 8 years. So why are you carping about them? And what other organizations are going to protect the poor and working-classes except if they litigate in the courts? Why do you think the Wal-Marts and Starbucks fight them tooth and nail? The gods help you that you never find yourself on the wrong side of corporate downsizing or this screwed up economic system!

Many schools need BASICS, like books, materials, improved facilities, etc. W's educational programs have done little to improve most public schools in this regard, let alone add the newest technologies.

But Mississippi and Arkansas have REPUBLICAN governors, or did you not know this? Barbour and Huckabee respectively. Second, I'm not sure where you've been for the past two years, but the W Ltd. administration has run almost completely on FEAR. They launched an ill-conceived war in Iraq based totally on lies and misstatements, building upon the sincere fear that Americans felt after 9/11. Whenever they are in political trouble, they pump up more FEAR. Now W is trying to play up his \"optimism,\" since he heard commentators apply this tag to Raygun, but the truth is that W has left most Americans LITTLE to be optimistic about.

Except this one thought: that he might be voted out in November 2004.


But millions of peoples' 401ks have suffered under W!!! Where have you been? The stock market decline after he took office was among the worst in the last 40 years! UNDER W! Where were you from 1992-2000? A DEMOCRAT was in office, and we experienced the longest period of ECONOMIC EXPANSION AND GROWTH in our history. Under a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. Bill Clinton. I know it doesn't square with RNC claptrap, but neither does W's blowout of the deficit, his cut-and-spend policies, his education policies that even Republican governors are fleeing, his poor job creation record....

Please. It's about what W has taken--taken irrevocably, through his disastrous policies. Dis-ass-strous!

But isn't this what your beloved W has been doing of late, groveling at the feet of the UN to help bail him out of his screw-up of Iraq? Leave the Faux zone for a few hours. The W people don't LIKE homosexuals, or haven't you heard? Aren't you one?

If Kerry doesn't win this one how far back do you think we'll be pushed? I can barely stand reading the news with all the backlash against us as it is. Four more years of it will put me over the edge. I am so very tired of these so called Christians thumping their bibles about "The Gay Menace". I am elated about being able to get married in Mass on minute and the next 20 groups are trying to blackmail representatives into balking (Catholics, Baptists, ugh). We desperately need to keep the separation between church and state or I fear it could really get much worse.

As the son of both a teacher and union member, quite frankly I am offended. This country owes an enormous debt to the union movement in building a solid middle class (who also act as consumers and drive the economy) and financial security for this country. As a sign on a union building in DC says - "from the folks that gave you the weekend."

Do unions have their problems? certainly - but they sure beat the alternative (take a look at the history of America in the 1800s if you want to see unfettered capitalism without unions - it is not a pretty picture).

As for teachers, those who have the toughest challenges are those who have the fewest resources to meet those challenges - the inner city and rural teachers with the poorest students. And as fantomas pointed out, it is the states that have rejected the Democratic ideals of multiculturalism and tolerance (never mind a respect for actual science) that are at the bottom of the educational ladder.

certainly! were it not for the unions in 20th century, there would not be a middle class to whine about workers trying to unionize.

Just look at China to see what would have happened had we no unions to push for living wages. There are many millionaires and Billionaires in China's bustling Unionless economy. and working for these ultra-rich who drive Maybachs and Rolls Royces? Millions of workers barely making enough to keep squalid living conditions and barely enough food to live on.

Don't get me wrong. Unions have not been perfect either. Many have gotten out of hand. But the teachers union is NOT one of them.

and the next time you go to your job and are able to make enough money to afford your nice car, your modest but comfy home and your annual vacation, thank the labour movement that made that possible.

Let's also not forget that the heroes that millions (the majority?) of Americans praised after 9/11, those policemen and women and firefighters, belong to...you guessed it, UNIONS!

Some other accomplishments of labor unions over the years: 8-hour work week; end to child labor; universal free public education for children; end to use of prisoner labor to supplant free workers' labor; non-working weekend; abolition of debtors' prisons; collective bargaining agreements; and so on.

As ung says, unions have been riven by corruption, but then so has management at numerous major corporations. Certainly the entire nation got a clear view into this when Enron imploded, and when the executives at Tyco and other corporations were finally caught running through the company tills.

Not even, FT! That was the direct result of legislation in the era before unions wielded anything near the power needed to achieve such reform - and was a longstanding grievance from colonial days.

I agree with Ung and CPT, and I'm the son of a union HS teacher too, although I do, like my Dad, recognize that too often the NEA has participated in the dumbing down of American education by relaxing standards on teacher training and classroom discipline. And unions have made solid contributions to our culture, but let's not exaggerate them or ignore the faults which they, like corporations, exhibit when they fall prey to greed.

Nobody is exaggerating them or ignoring their faults, and let me say, American unions in general don't have the best racial history either, but my father was in a union all his life, and I saw the good they can do. The Right demonizes them relentlessly. As I said, the very people acclaimed as heroes in the 9/11 tragedy--the police and firefighters--both belong to unions. As do, I'll add the airplane pilots who died in that horrible tragedy, and I would imagine the flight attendants.

You're right that the earliest legislation to abolish debtors' prisons was passed around 1778, though it wasn't universal; but people could still be imprisoned (or held under bond) for debts as late as the post-Civil War period. Also, there were craft unions in the Northeast (and earlier in Britain and the rest of Europe) by the 18th century. So craft unions have been around this country for several centuries now. But here's another writer's take:

The Labor & Radical Press, 1820-present: An Overview and Bibliography
At any rate, the achievements of labor unions are by no means guaranteed, so the struggle is ongoing. Just look at a mega-corporation like Wal-Mart and how it wages war against low-wage workers, uses illegal immigrant contractors and so on.

BTW, are you voting for W?

fantomas to gmgsfo:
"BTW, are you voting for W?"


The silence is deafening.

Don't know how I managed to quote my own post immediately above this one... oops.

Anyhow, TomFord, thanks for the clarification about the quotes.

Facts would help separate fiction from emotion.

1. Arkansas does have a Repulican Gov (I hosted him on Msft campus) I know Mike Huckabee. prior to that do you remember Jim Guy Tucker? - who resigned because of the Whitewater conviction. Prior to that Slick Willy (Clinton) was Gov.and prior to 8 out 9 Ar Gov were Dems. Funny how AR ranks 48th in funding for Public Ed/pupil?
2.Mississippi has had Dems as Governor since 1874. Kirk Fordice broke this streak in 1992-2000 the Ronny Musgrove repeated the Dem mistakes. Mississippi is ranked as 48th smartest state when ranking students (See Morgan Quito's ranking BTW-AR is ranked 38th)

So Mike Huckabee and Hailey Barbour are both trying resolve problems created by long longtime Dem administrations In Ar there are 100 State Reps -70 are Dems only 30 belong to Mike Huckabee's party. And it's been that way for years. Hailey Barbour has the same road to hoe in MS. More Dems than Reps (80 are Dems and only 45 are Repubs).

I stand by my comments.

I appreciate that Fantomas and others are sensitive to teachers and come family that include teachers- my father was an Academic Dean of Students and University VP and also an Emeritus Professor of Am. History- my sister is a teacher (and a Teacher Union Rep) my sister-in-law is a Dean of Jouralism at another University plus others in family to numerous to mention. Having said all that-I'm sensitive to teachers-but lots of current teachers (mostly the old guard) are the problem not the answer. Teachers need to be flexible most are not. Math and science scores are dropping each yr. NEAs and TEAs don't get it. America needs to re-tool their education goals and standards. A modern day Horace Mann is desperaterly needed. And W knows that.
3.One million jobs have been created in the last three months. 248K jobs in May alone (353K jobs in March and 346K jobs in April). In the last nine month 1.6M jobs have been created.

W is not perfect. But he is not owned by special interest fat cats of Union Bosses.

Lastly I was part of the Carter WH team and worked in EOB just West of WH. As a young idealistic Liberal I thought the only way of life was that of a liberal. I was totally disappointed responses from the DNC and Democratic leadership when crisis occurred. So disappointed my eyes opened to world of real values and real solutions. Dems to use the blame game. And not get at the real solution.

I stand by my words. wink wink

He's owned by Halliburton, Enron (well, used to be -- they're pretty much dead now, I guess), the oil companies, the House of Saud....just keep adding on the corporate names here....

Eastsidewa-you stand by your words. Well I stand by mine. Don't get it twisted, as my young cousins like to say. Neither the Democratic nor the the Republican parties are anything like they were in the early 20th century, before the Republicans figured out their "southern strategy" to garner the support of poor whites. Remember, even Strom was a Democrat once. To say that Dems are at fault for messes in the South is a bit misleading, to say the least.

Like I said, I'm all fine with you not being a one-issue voter. There is way too much crony-ism and corruption in both corporate management and labor unions. Whether a republican may be better at cleaning up this problem does not mute the fact that Bush is a man who is intent on codifying your status as a second class citizen. If this does not at least cause pause as you pull the lever, I am forced to question--like Andrew Sullivan--whether you respect yourself fully as a gay person. I highly doubt that Bush is going to somehow transform our nation's education system in the next 5 years. But I do not doubt that he can strike real blows to the forward movement of gay rights in this country.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Mixing Andrew Sullivan and his skewed concept of "respect" is disengenious. I respect my right to consider the full sum of the parts and not just one single issue. I respect my right to rationalize the qualities of leadership, honesty and truth (totally lacking by Mr.Heinz-Kerry that's right He doesn't own an SUV- it's his wife's etc etc.). I respect my right to call a phony - a phony. I won't be voting for the Phony.

Don't throw the concept of respect at me.

Let's throw your "respect" term at Blacks and women. Geez all women should all become Democrats only if they respect themselves? Oh and Black Republicans must not respect themselves? Please. Think a little more before you type that stuff.

What next are you going to prop up Teddy Kennedy and have him wag his fat little finger me and say "Shame, Shame, Shame on you, you are gay and you must be a Democrat". The democratic party owns the gay vote and only the Democrats will decide when ,how and where gays will advance. And only the gays they like.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Eastsidewa ]

Now slow down. I AM black, and don't think for a moment that I haven't thought hard about the way that politics and personal identity intersect. (Re)Read what I wrote. Never once have I suggested that you should vote Kerry. That's your decision to make. (HINT-There are more than two political parties, and abstention can be a political decision!) But for you to so wholeheartedly support Bush strikes me as a bit bizarre.

The Black Republican analogy just doesn't work, since the Republican party has at least attempted to improve its relationship with women and people of color. But Bush will accept you as a full citizen only if you reject your homosexuality, and I can't stand for that. The more accurate analogy would be a black man voting for a segregationist Strom Thurman, when he ran for president, on the grounds that Strom was good for the economy. I would question that man as much as I question you.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Eastsidewa, if you're happy being a second class citizen by all means vote for Bush. I'm sure you can respect yourself but if I can never get married I will have no respect for you. I don't really even see it as a republican/democrat thing. I have a lot of respect for a few republicans (and I will say Arnold is impressing me) but the Bush anti-gay stance is totally intolerable. He wants to put his discrimination IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Do you understand the magnitude of that?

[ June 25, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: gobar ]

Mr. Gobar: I am not second class citizen nor the fact that W is for the FMA makes me a 2nd class citizen. You are confusing rights with priviledges. I really doubt that FMA will pass any Congress and survive the litmus test of both State Legislatures and the courts. If you re-read the threads it's comforting to know that others see value in not being a single issue focused voter. Perhaps you could broaden your horizon with the same realization.

Its certainly not a single issue with me. I despise everything about the Shrub. I also happen to like Kerry and his outspoken wife. I think he's an intelligent, good man. But for you to rely on congress to void the FMA is dicey for me. You obviously don't care about your rights or as you seem to think, privileges. If you are not going to be a second class citizen should the FMA pass does that mean that you are straight? Not that there is anything wrong with that...

The Blame game. Let's gang up on the conservative. Let's throw mud because it works to get the Democratic nomination. As I said before I'll put your name on the invite list for W re-election Inaugral Ball. I'll be dancing there and smiling.

We shall see....Seriously though eastsidewa, how would you not be a second class citizen? For that matter all of us outside of Mass are even now. Why doesn't that bother you?

[ June 25, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: gobar ]

No need to apoligize Eastside, as long as the FMA and other anti-gay measures don't pass given a second term for GWB.

Now, I find it quite amazing you accuse everyone voting against Bush as being blind partisans, when you continually frame the debate as R vs. D (as in your last post). Meanwhile, other people have stated, as I am now, there are any number of Republicans who do not support the FMA and therefore are certainly open to possibly getting my support. Bob Barr and Aaaarnold come to mind. OTOH, there are Democrats, such as Robert Byrd and Zell Miller, who are pro-FMA and rabidly homophobic and could not possibly ever get my vote. Methinks the biggest partisan in the room is you.

Yes, the president's support of the FMA is a deal breaker for me. It is blaringly obviously to even the most blind person that GWB has decided to use this as a wedge issue. He saw his tumbling poll numbers, and that he needs to win every single vote he can muster in November to win reelection, and he is doing so by inciting people to believe gay men and women are an urgent threat to children, families, and marriage. If YOU are okay being used to frighten and incite your neighbors in this fashion by a man for his own political gain, I can simply hold no respect for you.

For some reason, I always think about that common scene on "Cops", where the police respond to the mobile home and put the shirtless trashy guy in handcuffs. When the cops and camera go to talk to the woman, her face bruised and bleeding, they ask "Did he do this to you?". She says "Yes, but still, he LOVES me. I won't press charges".

Even if this is true -- and I wouldn't trust these politicians (including those who sit in court) any further than I could throw them -- it doesn't excuse the fact that the FMA and bills like it at the state level shouldn't even be under consideration!

Good point Joe.

Um, why does everyone seem to forget that the Supreme Court has already held that marriage is a fundamental right?

I voted for McCain. Then Gore.

I for one find it difficult (impossible?) to vote for someone who thinks I have no legal rights and should be in jail because I am not like them.

Last year (after 20 years as a registered Republican) I switched parties.

I don't like Kerry, I voted for Dean. I will vote for Kerry.

I have never in my life had the LUXURY of voting for a presidential candidate in a national election that I liked or trusted, I have always had to select the lesser of evils.

Rob

[ June 25, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Political ideology aside, how can anyone vote for someone that is barely literate, a continuing embarassment to the Western world, and simply unaccessbile and ineffectual?

Repub or Demo ... why would you choose a simpleton as your political leader?

Ask around the deep south -- and the answer is always the same:

"Because President Bush is a good Christian man."

Scary, ain't it?

Beware the hyper-religious....

We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge.
-Rudolf Hess, speech, 20 June 1934 (Reden, Munich. 1938, p. 25)

Through your oath you bind yourselves to a man who--that is our faith--was sent to us by higher powers...You will find him through the strength of your hearts!
-Rudolf Hess, in his speech, "The Oath to Adolf Hitler," 1934

We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Fuhrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty.
-Joseph Goebbels, in a broadcast, 19 April 1936

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. The way has been shown to us by the Fuhrer.
-Dean Eckert, sermon at Tegel, North Berlin, 10 February 1935

AND

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
--Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of American to gives us probably what we deserve.
--Jerry Falwell

[American was attacked because] God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.
--Pat Robertson

Individual Christians are the only ones really---and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
--Pat Robertson

The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period.--Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.
--Randall Terry, Ft. Wayne News Sentinel

[ June 27, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I was once a gay Republican. W changed that for me.

Unlike others, my dignity has a much greater price than what may happen to my 401K