Has Bush** ever complimented any female on her looks before today?

[Sparkle]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1610408

In the above thread, someone posted a link where Bush said a female reporter had wonderful eyes. I really believe he is starting to say and/or do stuff like this to cover his gayness. I could be wrong but it's a such a damn coincidence that this happened this weekend and gets reported.

I'm telling ya'll ... Bush is Gay!

[Skittles]

1. I don't wnat to think of him in ANY sexual context, THANK YOU

:o

[Erika]

2. Bush is an idiot

who cares about his sexual side?

[purduejake]

3. He's not gay.

I'm gay and I can tell who is gay and who is not. Thank you very much. :evilgrin:

[ashmanonar]

4. gaydar not pegging, huh?

;)

[proudbluestater]

5. "Not that there's anything wrong with that..."

I think this commenting on a woman's appearance fits right in with the right-wing's thoughts regarding women. We are not really to be taken seriously, after all. It's all about the looks we possess.

Would he compliment a man?

[Sparkle]

7. Actually he has.

Something about having a pretty face.

[tanyev]

15. That was about a man, baby.

:D

[Contrary1]

6. Bet Condi's gonna be pissed

that her husband was carrying on like that.

[necso]

8. It is strange.

And what you are suggesting would help explain certain things. (For example, the failing power and influence of anyone outside of certain "circles" -- perhaps "circles" in the "know" -- and their unflinchingly-loyal, willfully-blind flunkies.)

But if this is the case, I suspect that it will be guarded with many lives -- and defended to the very last.

And *'s supporters (largely) won't want to believe this -- even in the face of irrefutable evidence. They won't want to -- so they won't.

...

But nice one! It could well be a ploy to demonstrate his "manliness". -- I seem to recall that Yeltsin did something or other to demonstrate his "manliness", or that something was so spun at some time.

And him being gay is fine with me -- it's the evil stuff that bothers me. Consensual sex between adults is not evil -- it's only natural. (And, of course, I make many other distinctions ranging from "great idea" to "don't, it goes against this or that 'duty' that you hold" -- and to "no thanks".) (And "no, thanks".)

[Tsiyu]

9. Once again, his gayness wouldn't matter

IF 99% of his staunchest supporters hadn't made homosexuality their Number One talking point in the latest election.

We were told:

*gay people are responsible for 911

*gay people are destroying families

*gay people are the reason the climate is changing

*gay people are not allowed the same rights as others

*gay people should not be parents or schoolteachers or priests


Well, then what the fuck is a gay man doing in the White House?

[necso]

11. I don't know exactly

where to draw my own "line" on this (speaking to the more universal issues, for the moment).

Being gay (frankly, I am not even sure of the "approved" terminology) is cool. Being secretive about it is a matter of personal choice. Marrying the opposite sex? -- Well, maybe you're bisexual. (Cheating on a "partner", however would generally be "disloyal" -- and run counter to one's duties to that partner -- although "loyalty has been perverted in much of the common mind to mean sticking unthinkingly with some evil or the other no matter what, and so I use the word reluctantly). But if someone is attracted only to the same sex, then marrying the opposite sex, even if one is absolutely "faithful", is to me at least distasteful -- and I would recommend making some decent, discrete arrangements for individual sexual expression. However, I can't rule out that circumstances will more or less demand this of people in the real world. (Surely, of course, we should live in a society which would never demand this of anyone.) And I am often prepared to make some allowances for the reality of the world that we find ourselves in.

Being a hypocrite is not "best behavior", and is to be avoided. But when done in a modest way, and when circumstances demand it (circumstances that you will scrupulously attempt to avoid thereafter), it is not necessarily a biggie -- a thing to be avoided, but not necessarily a hugely terrible thing. And being "tactful", "courteous", "discrete" and/or "wise" (etc) can come across as hypocrisy, but when done to avoid unnecessary, minor, preventable (and generally wrong-minded on the part of the "injured" party) harm, (especially harm which will thereby be permanently avoided) -- and not as an attempt to deceive and/or take advantage of someone or something -- these "values" may have the greater weight.

Homophobia, however, is ignorant, unwise -- and not open-minded. Therefore, it is always to be avoided.

And other people will view the matter differently. Indeed, a person to whom the issue of sexuality has stronger person meanings may well be expected to hold different and stronger views.

But to return to the matter of *.

Certainly I can say that I can justify basically nothing that * and his cronies have done. And if * is gay, then (again) that, in itself, is ok. However, * being gay and doing what he has done (that is, now taking other things into consideration -- specifically those related to homophobia), or has let happen, or has taken advantage of, in the way of homophobia, would be an extremely sick and twisted thing to do. -- And the hypocrisy (and evil generally) would be of staggering proportions (except, perhaps, to a hardened cynic like myself). (And the essential evil of what is going on is unchanged, whether * is gay or not.)

And I have no trouble believing any of these things about *. None whatsoever.

...And I might be disposed to a certain potential sympathy towards his wife -- if she was truly a victim -- which I seriously doubt. These people (those involved in playing such "games") usually all know what is really going on -- they just suppress it -- it's easier that way.

The old "de nile" thing, you know.

[DrCorday]

12. Whoa, what if Falwell was right.

Read your bullet points, and replace the word "gay" with Bush. Funny how correct so much of that actually is. (Leave "people" in...) Now we have:

*Bush people are responsible for 911

*Bush people are destroying families

*Bush people are the reason the climate is changing

*Bush people are not allowed the same rights as others (they have more!

*Bush people should not be parents or schoolteachers or priests


Almost leans credibility to this absurd theory of Bush's orientation.

I think this is mostly below the belt, actually, so I must be going now.

[Tsiyu]

13. Funny how that works out

isn't it?

[Benhurst]

10. He's not gay! He's not! He's not! He's not! Well, maybe. Who knows?

Or cares? He is a war criminal, though.

[warrior1]

14. Isn't he

just doing the down-low? Men who have sex with other men but tell them selves they are not gay?


http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200404/20040416/tows_slide_20040416_02.jhtml

I know, I know, Oprah...

Is He Gay?
"Why do I have to label myself to make you comfortable? …The act of the sex is homosexuality, but I don't want to get caught up in the whole gay culture, because the media and people look at gay people as being less than a man . The media has let white gay people feel more comfortable in their skin and it's accepted. The greatest taboo is to be black and homosexual, and I refuse to be labeled and classified that folks will look at me as something different. I am a man."

His Marriage
"My marriage wasn't a lie, because I love my wife, she was my best friend, we were running partners. What was a lie about the marriage was my desire to have sex with other men. I did not reveal that to her because I was scared."

Gratification vs. Orientation
"If I was a gay man, I may want to be in a relationship with another man and play house. But when you're on the "down low" all you want to do is have sex."


http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200404/tows_past_20040416_c.jhtml

[hlthe2b]

16. I think he is an impotent angry man, who compensates with the machismo.

Whether he is hetero or bisexual is beyond the point to me.

[smirkymonkey]

17. Exactly, and any sexual overture he makes toward either sex

is about power, not lust.