When will we get to hear Kerry's miracle plan for ending problems with Iraq and balancing the budget and getting jobs for everyone. We won't. We'll just hear promises, just like Clinton promised us the world. Nothing will change if Kerry wins, and he'll say it's because of Bush and all the libs will be satisfied with that.
eek!
Full Version: Is anyone on Outsports voting for Bush?
On the other hand, you can vote for Bush who's delivered an economic disaster, record deficits and a foreign policy predicated on alienating our allies and creating world crises where none exist while ignoring festering problems that are both dangerous to world stability and locally devastating.
Kerry, at the very least recognizes the errors of this administration, which is blind to its own misdeeds. With that knowledge, perhaps he can address the disasters the Bush administration will leave behind. No, he doesn't have all the answers. Some of the questions don't have answers, but he will ask the questions that need to be asked, rather than hiding his head in the sand and trying to convince an increasingly skeptical American electorate that everything is just find, as long as you ignore the man behind the curtain.
Kerry, at the very least recognizes the errors of this administration, which is blind to its own misdeeds. With that knowledge, perhaps he can address the disasters the Bush administration will leave behind. No, he doesn't have all the answers. Some of the questions don't have answers, but he will ask the questions that need to be asked, rather than hiding his head in the sand and trying to convince an increasingly skeptical American electorate that everything is just find, as long as you ignore the man behind the curtain.
hate to interupt this fantasy with facts, but under clinton, iraq was contained, the budget was balanced, and the economy had about a million more jobs than it currently does. if kerry delivers similar kinds of promises, i, for one, would be a very happy camper!
it's time to start asking, "are you better off than you were four years ago?"
it's time to start asking, "are you better off than you were four years ago?"
osufan, take a minute to go to John Kerry's website. He has his plan for almost all the issues posted on there. There's nothing miraculous about his plans......but they are a step in the right direction. Things like getting rid of the tax breaks for the wealthy while leaving the tax breaks for the middle/lower class. He also has a plan to cut the deficit in half by 2008. Remember when the Kerry campaign submitted it's budget ideas and it was going to be 'examined' for flaws....well we never really heard anything about it, so I would imagine that would mean there were really no big flaws or anything.
illini - I am going to spend a whole day of my upcoming four day weekend researching mr kerry - because i like you; for sending me all those hot austin parkinson pics 
[quote]aquaman:
[QUOTE]
Let me ask you this: if there is another terror attack on US soil, will you still be voting for the man whose homeland security plans failed to stop it? [/quote]You all are bringing up many good points. I'll get to more later, but to answer this one first, the answer is "probably not". I am basing my praise on Bush's job UP TO NOW of preventing another attack on US soil.
I hope I am wrong, but I really believe the terrorists in the US are waiting to make a big splash right before the election. Much like what happened in Spain. If Bush can continue to prevent attacks, right up to election day, I will praise him even more than I am now. If he doesn't, I will evaluate the situation based on the circumstances.
My vote is not set in stone. There is a lot of time for both Bush and Kerry to make impressions.
[QUOTE]
Let me ask you this: if there is another terror attack on US soil, will you still be voting for the man whose homeland security plans failed to stop it? [/quote]You all are bringing up many good points. I'll get to more later, but to answer this one first, the answer is "probably not". I am basing my praise on Bush's job UP TO NOW of preventing another attack on US soil.
I hope I am wrong, but I really believe the terrorists in the US are waiting to make a big splash right before the election. Much like what happened in Spain. If Bush can continue to prevent attacks, right up to election day, I will praise him even more than I am now. If he doesn't, I will evaluate the situation based on the circumstances.
My vote is not set in stone. There is a lot of time for both Bush and Kerry to make impressions.
What makes one think the terrorists believe America will respond the same way Spain did to an attack during our elections ? I say they don't attack so their "evil face of America" remains the focus for four more years. A win by Kerry is a set back to the terrorist effort (at a minimum, hurting their recruiting efforts.)
[ June 30, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]
QUOTE
When will we get to hear Kerry's miracle plan for ending problems with Iraq and balancing the budget and getting jobs for everyone.
Actually, I'm still waiting to hear what the Bush administration is going to do about these very issues (many of their own making). "Amurikka will stay the course" "here's a tax cut if you are rich", "the rest is a secret and you don't need to know" and "a marriage is between one MAN and one WOMAN, so don't worry about this other stuff" just ain't cutting it for me. [ June 30, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]
OSUFAN wrote, "When will we get to hear Kerry's miracle plan for ending problems with Iraq and balancing the budget and getting jobs for everyone. We won't. We'll just hear promises, just like Clinton promised us the world."
As a Libertarian middleman, OSU, I have to ask, "when the f**k I'm gonna hear those same things from Bush?"
Kerry is a waffler, but Bush has no absolutley NO economic agenda, NOR does he have an extraction plan for Iraq.
You really ought to think before you post. You're giving the fiscal conservatives on this board (like me) a bad name.
As a Libertarian middleman, OSU, I have to ask, "when the f**k I'm gonna hear those same things from Bush?"
Kerry is a waffler, but Bush has no absolutley NO economic agenda, NOR does he have an extraction plan for Iraq.
You really ought to think before you post. You're giving the fiscal conservatives on this board (like me) a bad name.
osufan, what can I say, I know how to negotiate! wink
Boy, I am so shocked with the postings on these message boards. I once was a Republican but after voting for Reagan for his second term I wised up, came out, found my husband and moved over to the Democrat side. We have gay friends that are saying they are voting for Bush and we have had very heated discussions about it to the point of losing those friends. Why should we even try to be friends with people like that. It boggles my mind that anyone that is gay would vote for Bush. I really believe it comes down to "self-hate" and that you will vote for an administration because you hate yourself so much for being gay that you vote for someone like Bush to justify it. That is F'd Up Big time! :mad:
I see it this way. If I were voting for Bush on November 2nd and the Rev. Fred Phelps were at my same polling area we would have this strange commonness for that moment when we both press the button or color in the circle for the Bush/Cheney ticket. How weird would that be?? Think about it. eek!
I see it this way. If I were voting for Bush on November 2nd and the Rev. Fred Phelps were at my same polling area we would have this strange commonness for that moment when we both press the button or color in the circle for the Bush/Cheney ticket. How weird would that be?? Think about it. eek!
Voting for Bush was not even an option for me; I didn't vote for him in 2000 (BTW didn't vote for Gore, either) and the combination of FMA, Iraq, Halliburton and the continued flirtation with the anti-democratic Religious Right assure me that I will not now or ever support the Republican party and certain not with an obviously unintelligent and intellectually incurious individual like GWB as their candidate.
Plus, I saw 'F911' last night. That closed the deal for me. Michael Moore is my new American Hero.
Plus, I saw 'F911' last night. That closed the deal for me. Michael Moore is my new American Hero.
QUOTE
gadbearr:
Boy, I am so shocked with the postings on these message boards. I once was a Republican but after voting for Reagan for his second term I wised up, came out, found my husband and moved over to the Democrat side. We have gay friends that are saying they are voting for Bush and we have had very heated discussions about it to the point of losing those friends. Why should we even try to be friends with people like that. It boggles my mind that anyone that is gay would vote for Bush. I really believe it comes down to \"self-hate\" and that you will vote for an administration because you hate yourself so much for being gay that you vote for someone like Bush to justify it. That is F'd Up Big time! :mad:
This post just touched on one of my pet peeves. Where is it written that because you are gay you must be a Democrat? Most of my friends are gay Democrats, but that doesn't mean we abandon our friendships over it. There are certain things about my friends that I could care less about. They include: race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation and political affiliation.Boy, I am so shocked with the postings on these message boards. I once was a Republican but after voting for Reagan for his second term I wised up, came out, found my husband and moved over to the Democrat side. We have gay friends that are saying they are voting for Bush and we have had very heated discussions about it to the point of losing those friends. Why should we even try to be friends with people like that. It boggles my mind that anyone that is gay would vote for Bush. I really believe it comes down to \"self-hate\" and that you will vote for an administration because you hate yourself so much for being gay that you vote for someone like Bush to justify it. That is F'd Up Big time! :mad:
Yes, we disagree on politics. But we respect each other's opinions. Sometimes I may even sway them on an issue. Sometimes they sway me. This Republican actually listened to his friends and voted for Gore in 2000.
Please judge your friends on values that matter. Honesty, sincerity, thoughfulness, caring, and just the basic love for other people.
QUOTE
We have gay friends that are saying they are voting for Bush and we have had very heated discussions about it to the point of losing those friends. Why should we even try to be friends with people like that.
What's mind-boggling is that you'd be willing to lose friends over something so insignificant as politics. I'm the only gay Republican in my little circle of friends and no one cares. We all laugh about it.
QUOTE
Jerzoid:
What's mind-boggling is that you'd be willing to lose friends over something so insignificant as politics.
I'm the only gay Republican in my little circle of friends and no one cares. We all laugh about it.
On the whole, I'd agree with that. But I have several aquantances who will probably never be friends because our values are so different, particularly regarding politics, that I simply cannot see myself calling them friend. On the other hand, I do have several conservative friends I wouldn't trade for the world. Arguing politics with them is too much fun.
What's mind-boggling is that you'd be willing to lose friends over something so insignificant as politics.
I'm the only gay Republican in my little circle of friends and no one cares. We all laugh about it.
When it comes right down to it, Bush is an ass**** plain and simple. He may have a Christian right agenda, but I think it's more of a shell game to get the public worked up over "religious" issues and bury the true issues in a fog like the war, economy and foreign affairs. At the same time, I am not totally naive that our government is scared shitless that gays ultimately will be given the right to marry. Not because they are concerned about the "sanctity of marriage" or want to preserve society, but giving us this right allows any of us to get one of the biggest benefits we are denied--Social security death benefits for our partners when we die. Right now these disappear into the pool. If we are given this right, they don't have the bank roll to fund it, and they also don't have the ability to "police" the number of same sex unions for validity of each social security claim. Right now, as long as the widow/widower doesn't remarry before age 60, they begin receiving your social security benefits even though you may have kicked years earlier. If you have kids, it can be distributed even earlier than age 60. With a social security system tapped and the loss of this "free cash reserve" pool, many a congressperson is nervous about how quickly we could dry this system up.
I am continously amazed at the fact that most gay Democrats think that the ONLY way other gays can vote is on a strict Democratic ticket. And if you do not, you are some type of Quisling.
Not all gay/lesbian voters think in the black/white reductionist terms that gay libs do. There's a range of political views among our community. As gay/lesbian citizens, we always talk about acceptance of diversity. Yet when it comes to politics, the gloves are drawn.
I admit that at at least 65% of gay voters are "libs." But there are a large chunk out there that do NOT agree with the tax-and-spend big gov't policies of so many candidates that have been ordained by the gay mafia.
You can vote for them. I don't have to.
That doesn't make me "less gay" than you either.
It only means I have a different political view than you.
And there's nothing more American than dissent.
Not all gay/lesbian voters think in the black/white reductionist terms that gay libs do. There's a range of political views among our community. As gay/lesbian citizens, we always talk about acceptance of diversity. Yet when it comes to politics, the gloves are drawn.
I admit that at at least 65% of gay voters are "libs." But there are a large chunk out there that do NOT agree with the tax-and-spend big gov't policies of so many candidates that have been ordained by the gay mafia.
You can vote for them. I don't have to.
That doesn't make me "less gay" than you either.
It only means I have a different political view than you.
And there's nothing more American than dissent.
QUOTE
And there's nothing more American than dissent.
Yeah, well, tell that to PF! wink I don't have any personal problems with Gay Republicans and have been know to cast a vote or two for GOP candidates myself, but I'm having a hard time understanding the support being given George W. Bush after what has taken place in his term. Add that to the fact that he is more than willing to go on the Offensive where gays are concerned to get re-elected is just mind-boggling for some of us. eek!
QUOTE
AU Tiger in ATL:
But there are a large chunk out there that do NOT agree with the tax-and-spend big gov't policies of so many candidates that have been ordained by the gay mafia.
Under the last "tax-and-spend" president "ordained by the gay mafia" 22 million new jobs were created, we were left with the biggest federal surplus in history, not to mention eight years of unprecedented economic growth. But there are a large chunk out there that do NOT agree with the tax-and-spend big gov't policies of so many candidates that have been ordained by the gay mafia.
Under our current borrow-and-spend "president" one million+ jobs have been lost, we now have the largest federal deficit in history and the govt is bigger than ever, but hey, if that works for you, vote Bush!
QUOTE
gadbearr:
Boy, I am so shocked with the postings on these message boards. I once was a Republican but after voting for Reagan for his second term I wised up, came out, found my husband and moved over to the Democrat side. We have gay friends that are saying they are voting for Bush and we have had very heated discussions about it to the point of losing those friends. Why should we even try to be friends with people like that. It boggles my mind that anyone that is gay would vote for Bush. I really believe it comes down to \"self-hate\" and that you will vote for an administration because you hate yourself so much for being gay that you vote for someone like Bush to justify it. That is F'd Up Big time! :mad:
That's rather facile, and quite extreme. Reasonable people can disagree. I live in Manhattan, so I am a small minority as a Republican, and even more so as a gay Republican. Big deal - most of my friends are die-hard leftists. My partner and I were a perfect match for twelve years, and he was a died-in-the-wool Democrat. On his deathbed he railed that Bush was trying to steal the Florida election. It didn't make me love him any less, and I don't think any less of my Dem friends, either. Let's actually try and live by the gay mantra of inclusivity and acceptance of diversity within our community; I think we'd all be better off, and apparently some of us might have more friends, too. Boy, I am so shocked with the postings on these message boards. I once was a Republican but after voting for Reagan for his second term I wised up, came out, found my husband and moved over to the Democrat side. We have gay friends that are saying they are voting for Bush and we have had very heated discussions about it to the point of losing those friends. Why should we even try to be friends with people like that. It boggles my mind that anyone that is gay would vote for Bush. I really believe it comes down to \"self-hate\" and that you will vote for an administration because you hate yourself so much for being gay that you vote for someone like Bush to justify it. That is F'd Up Big time! :mad:
wink
Why should we re-elect G. Bush? I am being very sincere with my question. Based on what he's done so far and based on what he plans to do if re-elected, why does he deserve my vote?
The silence speaks volumes. :confused:
Razor, as I stated much earlier I am NOT voting for Shrub. But I also NOT voting for Kerry.
My beef is that some people think every GLBT person has to vote for the same candidate. Its bullshit, really.
If someone's #1 self-identification label is "gay," then fine...voting against Bush makes sense for you.
But guess what? I've met several people in my life who happen to be gay, but it isn't the #1 factor in their lives. They do not see every issue in the world through fag-colored glasses.
And in closing, I'll just say this; I voted for Clinton (twice). And he agreed to DADT and DOMA. I'm still looking for the evidence that his presidency did much of anything for the GLBT community.
My beef is that some people think every GLBT person has to vote for the same candidate. Its bullshit, really.
If someone's #1 self-identification label is "gay," then fine...voting against Bush makes sense for you.
But guess what? I've met several people in my life who happen to be gay, but it isn't the #1 factor in their lives. They do not see every issue in the world through fag-colored glasses.
And in closing, I'll just say this; I voted for Clinton (twice). And he agreed to DADT and DOMA. I'm still looking for the evidence that his presidency did much of anything for the GLBT community.
QUOTE
KeyWest Guy:
I know it's pretentious to quote my own post, but I stand by my word that Bush loses Florida AGAIN in 2004. Latest poll gives Kerry 48-43% lead in Florida. This is a five-point swing since last month. Note that polling was done prior to Kerry's choice of Edwards as VP.
QUOTE
fantomas:
I just hope enough people in Ohio, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada and Florida will do so.
Florida vote for Kerry here. Mark it down that you heard it here first--Bush loses Florida (again) in 2004. :cool: I just hope enough people in Ohio, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada and Florida will do so.
Poor poor Jeb. My heart bleeds for him. He must be getting worried. wink
QUOTE
puckman1:
Poor poor Jeb. My heart bleeds for him. He must be getting worried. wink
Perhaps this Thanksgiving will be the uncomfortable one in the Bush clan they talked about in 2000.
Poor poor Jeb. My heart bleeds for him. He must be getting worried. wink
I find it hard to believe anyone with a reasonable mind can't see what an horrendous job these administration has done. While I still don't think Bush is a bad guy (though he's shown himself to be rather murky about personal responsibility: see: drinking, drugs, etc.), his administration is full of truly dishonest and despicable people namely Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Hughes, and well, we know the rest. Surely they've gotten something big on Colin Powell; why else would he stay with such a horrible administration) They're corporate and religious fundamentalists hell bent on putting their views into law. They've done extensive damage to our country's reputation, economy, bill of rights, and last but not least, are responsible for the hundreds of American lives lost in Iraq. As far as I can see, they haven't accomplished a single positive thing with the exception of knowing that Saddam is behind bars - but, the price we've paid for that is highly debatable as being worth it.
They lied and cheated their way into the white house and I imagine we'll see some of the same in an attempt to stay. I'll pray to a universal god that the United States of America doesn't have to suffer through four more years of their fundamentalism.
They lied and cheated their way into the white house and I imagine we'll see some of the same in an attempt to stay. I'll pray to a universal god that the United States of America doesn't have to suffer through four more years of their fundamentalism.
Bryan, with your help and people that think like we do, we won't have to put up with 4 more years, and it will be no more years. 
PSA
Supreme Court faces are sure to change in the next term. Scalia is Bush's "model" justice. Do the math.
Supreme Court faces are sure to change in the next term. Scalia is Bush's "model" justice. Do the math.
QUOTE
HornFan:
PSA
Supreme Court faces are sure to change in the next term. Scalia is Bush's \"model\" justice. Do the math.
This is what I'm most afraid of...the ability to appoint the next justice could set us back (as well as others) many years.PSA
Supreme Court faces are sure to change in the next term. Scalia is Bush's \"model\" justice. Do the math.
I'm also a little in dismay (like many others on this board) that a gay man or woman could vote for Bush. I have never been immensely political until this administration but I desperately want him removed from office. For the first time, I'm actually making political donations.
Besides the lies, the Iraq situtation, the largest deficit in history, and the tax breaks for the rich even during a war, his voting record on gay issues since he was in Texas has been very consistant with one goal--slowly remove our rights, make us "lesser" citizens and push each and everyone one of us back in the closet. Whether you consider yourself republican or not, love this halfass war or like your tax break, get a clue--he is the farthest thing from a moderate republican you could find. Whether you think he's "not a bad guy" and it's only a political chess move to secure the religious right vote it still works against us--he will follow through with their agenda.
Just thought I'd mention that the current issue of Advocate magazine has an article that talks about gay people that support the Bush administration.
Uh oh...it looks like the administration is pressuring Pakistan to come up with a "high value target" (Osama bin Laden or some other notable) to help them dampen any bounce the Democrats gain from their convention and help W look like a success...it's all about politics with these people!
QUOTE
July surprise?
What better way to douse the excitement at the Democratic National Convention at the end of this month than for a Bush administration ally -- namely Pervez Musharraf -- to cough up Osama bin Laden? The New Republic, working with a Pakistani journalist, reports that this is exactly what the Bush administration is gunning for as they pressure Pakistan to produce OBL and other \"high-value targets\" before the election.
\"According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), \"The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections.\" Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, \"no timetable[s]\" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, 'The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections.' (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)
\"A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis 'have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of [high-value targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must.' What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: 'The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington.' Says McCormack: 'I'm aware of no such comment.' But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that 'it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July'--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.\"
What better way to douse the excitement at the Democratic National Convention at the end of this month than for a Bush administration ally -- namely Pervez Musharraf -- to cough up Osama bin Laden? The New Republic, working with a Pakistani journalist, reports that this is exactly what the Bush administration is gunning for as they pressure Pakistan to produce OBL and other \"high-value targets\" before the election.
\"According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), \"The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections.\" Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, \"no timetable[s]\" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, 'The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections.' (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)
\"A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis 'have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of [high-value targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must.' What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: 'The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington.' Says McCormack: 'I'm aware of no such comment.' But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that 'it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July'--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.\"
Didn't vote for him the first time. Not gonna vote for him the second time.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.