Actually, Jimmy, that’s YOUR argument. Funny how you and your fellow liberals claim that Bush is solely responsible for spending, that Congress has nothing to do with it, but then claim that Clinton had nothing to do with DADT or DOMA, that it was solely Congress’s responsibility.

Furthermore, Jimmy, even if you admit that you are wrong, DADT was passed by Congress in 1993. What party controlled Congress in 1993?

Furthermore, as far as using DOMA to his advantage, why else was Clinton advertising the fact that he signed it on Christian radio stations as proof of his “defending American values”?

Poor, poor Jimmy. You really CAN’T admit that it was antigay and bigoted for Clinton to sign and promote DADT and DOMA, can you? You really CAN’T admit that it was antigay and bigoted for John Kerry to push stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments, can you? Of course you can’t, because you and yours have been screaming all along that Democrats aren’t antigay, that they would never support antigay positions for political advantage, etc.

Sucks to have your hypocrisy and falsehoods shown, doesn’t it?

Once the authors and sponsors of the bills foist them upon the public and push these bills through the legislative process, those in office operate in the context of public opinion, one which is not at all favorable to gay and lesbian people (and in certain places more than others). It is the likes of Musgrave and friends, with the hugs and smooches of the President, that continue to push the anti-gay agenda, that give a legitimate voice to it, and that use it to their advantage.

Are you saying that it is the sole responsibility of the President for the ridiculous amount of spending that has been going on? He did sign the budgets, no? So it must be his fault alone. Just his. Congress is totally off the hook?

Stop being such a caricature. And, I might add, stop make all sorts of assumptions about comment writers and stick to the points made. Otherwise you look like a total joke, masquerading as a serious person who is reduced to your guessing games and ad hominem attacks.

Nothing, that is, other than pure antigay bigotry and hate — which they get away with because there are enough mendacious queers like Joe Solmonese and Elizabeth Birch who will gladly manipulate uninformed ones like you for the right amount of money.

National Stonewall Democrats – to their credit, when many democratic house members supported the FMA, the Stonewall Democrats posted the names of those democrats on their blog, Trailmix, and urged their readers to contact the Democratic FMA supporters directly. The “bi-partisan” HRC would never do something so courageous.

And I hope you get your amendment out of your President. But, please, by all means, DO NOT SPEAK ILL OF HIM or his very active anti-gay bigotry.

Drop scoop of drink mix in glass of water, stir vigorously, and drink your kool aid.

Done with you and your nonsense. But first, let me write your response: Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry……

Fact is, Kerry did, Kerry was blatantly antigay, and you and yours still endorsed this, supported this, and showed up at his events and praised him. Same for Bill Clinton.

What are you upset about, Jimmy?

Is it that your bigots were forced out of the closet and made it obvious that they were lying when they said they supported gay equality and inclusion?

Is it that it was made obvious that you and yours, who claim that any gays who endorse, support, show up at their events, and praise antigay politicians are self-hating loathsome homophobes, are shown to be doing it yourself, to the tune of millions of dollars?

Fact is, Jimmy, when John Kerry was “now”, you and your fellow gay Democrats WERE cheering for him. Just like you cheered when Bill Clinton was “now”, just like you cheered when antigay bigot Tim Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

What’s even funnier is that you claim these people aren’t really bigots, they’re just doing it out of “political expediency”. That has two problems:

– It only works for Democrats

– It assumes that a politician, once in office, will act in a fashion completely contradictory to the will of the voters who put him there.

But it’s a good excuse for puppet Democrats like yourself who can’t call a bigot a bigot.

Spending can be up in general, with social welfare spending down. There are other items in the pie.

In other words, which party is more pro-active on the anti-gay agenda? If you can’t even be honest about this, I’m sorry for you.

The President, while you are mumbling on about John Kerry and (still) Bill Clinton, is cheering the work of Musgrave and a push for the amendment. This week. Now. And all you can do is talk about Bill Clinton. What about the members of Congress that put the DOMA ball in motion, only two of which, I think, are Democrats: REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE SKELTON (MO)?

But that harks back to the past as well. The President cheers the prospect of an amendment and a woman that despises gay people today. Today. How stupid would LCR look if they were to cheer for this man? About as stupid as it would be to invoke John Kerry in a response.

That is because, as I pointed out in #17, the person making the accusation and outlining the alleged “agenda” is contradicting themselves repeatedly. You can’t bash Bush for spending too much on social welfare and also for cutting it; the one precludes the other.

Meanwhile, Stephen, do you also call John Kerry supporters “internalized homophobes”, “closet queers”, “theocrats”, and “bible-thumping queer bashers”, given that they supported a candidate who wanted to ban gay marriage permanently and strip gays of rights?

There is a substantial difference between supporting the President and supporting everything the President does. No one is demanding that LCR support Bush’s antigay bigotry, or not speak out against it. However, what they ARE saying is that LCR should not be taking gratuitous swipes at the President or his advisors, or staying silent in the face of inane statements made by other “gay rights” groups, all in the name of making kissy-face to those same gay rights groups.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, John Kerry openly and vocally supported amendments banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights. Bill Clinton signed and promoted the fact that he signed legislation stripping gays of rights. HRC, NGLTF, and Stonewall Democrats endorsed this, supported this, and showed up at their events and praised them.

If LCR did that for Republican candidates, you would say that they “failed to demand equality and fairness for lesbians and gay men” and they would have no purpose “other than functioning as a fund-raising group for the GOP”.

What then, does that make Stonewall, HRC, and NGLTF? Even better, what does that make organizations like LCR who gag themselves from criticizing such practices?

My point: The President continues to support the amendment and to do so publicly–he even works to get the sponsors of the thing re-elected. Should LCR endorse this? Support this? Hell, even show up at the event and praise her? (Why not? The President is!!) What would be their purpose, other than functioning as a fund-raising group for the GOP, if they failed to demand equality and fairness for lesbians and gay men…Republican lesbians and gay men?

The constant attacks on LCR throughout these pages is fascinating–inasmuch as they are launched from armchairs. Not only left and liberal lesbians and gay men, but conservative lesbians and gay men find themselves in the crosshairs time after time. Are there no gay people that are safe from these tabloid-like attacks?

But, in the end, thanks for admitting that the President engages in anti-gay biogtry. I’ll wait to see if that shows up in an item on the main page.

NOT surprising! NOT one person quibbled with the anti-conservative, anti-Republican agenda of GWB.

While I’m disappointed in GWB, I’d still vote for him over Sen. Albert Gore of TN or Sen. John Kerry of MA. And as much as that may pain people, those were the final choices…so pick ONE when it’s that time every 4-years! There’s no third, fourth of fifth alternate, that’s how the system works.

“If’n yu ain’t gonna vote fo ‘em, vote ginst ‘em”

I realize internalized homophobes and closeted queers might support the anti-gay agenda of GWB’s theocrats, supporting Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Lou Sheldon queer-haters. Some people seem able to RATIONALIZE anything, including the WORST president in modern history. Rationalize away. But you CANNOT deny this queer-hater is NEITHER conservative nor Republican.

But at least admit you are theocratic homophobes! Because if you like GWB, you aren’t a conservative and you aren’t a Republican. You’re a bible-thumping queer-basher. 65% of America doesn’t trust this idiot, and majorities think GWB LIED us into Iraq and deficits. Of course, they aren’t homophobes, just reasonable people. For GAYS to support this homophobic, big-government agenda is absolutely incoherent.

And you STILL owe me that picture of me with Patrick!

Also GP and GPW, you guys need to get back involved with LCR at least at the local/state level. In a lot if not most of the country LCR provides a safe and sane place for conservatives to gather and exchange ideas. In Dallas, the sorta joke is that it’s a lot easier to come out as gay that as a Republican/conservative. Help provide that kind of space where you live. If you don’t like some of what is happening at the national level, then go ahead and let people know.