Why was Bill Clinton looked up to by the gay comm.

[redstaterebel]

True. "rich" people got the lion's share.

They should have though.

i'm a "trickle down" subscriber.

Rich people are the employers, the investors. Let them keep more money and do what comes natural. Its good for us.

[jq]

redstaterebel said:

True. "rich" people got the lion's share.

They should have though.

i'm a "trickle down" subscriber.

Rich people are the employers, the investors. Let them keep more money and do what comes natural. Its good for us.

Okay, true that the Rich people are the employers and the investors. However, in the free market system, we need buyers. Lots, and lots of buyers. And it is a proven fact that poor people spend money if you give it to them, wheras rich people often bank their extra money. Give to the poor, and you are stimulating the economy by increasing sales. Give to the rich, and that isn't a garantee.

[Kizzume]

The fact that there is so much greed out there, give it to the rich and it's usually a guarnatee that the investors are primarily going to invest in their own pocketbooks.

[debateman]

I think that the gay community has a great deal of reason to be angry with William Jefferson Clinton and should use that anger to avoid putting his wife into office. They are a team that are willing to sell certain commitments down the river to appease others. They sold us (the gay community) down the river during their administration and we shouldn't be surprised that they are willing to do it again. Some of the most egregious laws against homosexuals were developed, passed, and enforced by the Clinton Administration. If you listen to Hillary she claims that they did this for "our own good". That they were "saving us" from the Republicans by passing DADT and DOMA.

We as a gay community should be ashamed for our support of Clinton and should be even more ashamed to support his wife. We would be better off supporting Obama who has an Exodus minister preaying on his campaign. We at least would know where he stood unlike the Clintons.

[Kizzume]

It simply amazes me how wonderful and beautiful of a picture people have painted of Clinton, myself included for a long time. I used to just wave that Clinton flag high until more recently that I really looked into what he really did.

[Coyote]

Clinton did the same thing to us that he did to everyone else. He smiled and made us feel special while he f@#$ed us in the @$$. I certainly won't be voting for his wife, who will undoubtedly do the same thing.

[jq]

coyote said:

Clinton did the same thing to us that he did to everyone else. He smiled and made us feel special while he f@#$ed us in the @$$. I certainly won't be voting for his wife, who will undoubtedly do the same thing.

I think you may be right. It took a couple years for me to realize that he really wasn't that great of a president. I really bought into his bull pretty well until just recently


And I certainly hope Hillary loses to Obama in Iowa. That would make my freakin' day, (and maybe make my freakin' country, too!)

[redstaterebel]

President Clinton was/is one of the best politicians this country has ever seen. campaigning, public speaking, personable - Reagan was good at it, but I think Clinton is right up there.

That said - does that translate into being a great president? I don't think it does.

He wasn't a bad President - but a far cry from great. Its the same with the "first black president" thing - ??
there is no record.


For those in the gay community - would you like gay marriage? or would civil union with the same legal standing suffice?

[jq]

redstaterebel said:

President Clinton was/is one of the best politicians this country has ever seen. campaigning, public speaking, personable - Reagan was good at it, but I think Clinton is right up there.

That said - does that translate into being a great president? I don't think it does.

Well said RSR. I would have to agree with you fully on that. Like Reagan, Clinton is one of the greatest speakers we have had.


Still, I might argue that their ability to be great speakers and personable people really does do a LOT for the country, though on paper it is hard to show.

I'd say that Reagan AND Clinton, despite the flaws they both had, would be way better to have than either of the bushes, or carter. I'd say in the past 30 years, out of everyone we had, I would want to have Regan or Clinton again (over the others) simply because, they weren't embarrassing leaders! They were convincing! They both gave us pride. A pride that can't find with Carter, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. ALl three of those guys have been some of the most embarassing presidents we have ever had. Their presence in world politics is humiliating. But with both Bill and Reagan, that was not the case.

[debateman]

redstaterebel said:

President Clinton was/is one of the best politicians this country has ever seen. campaigning, public speaking, personable - Reagan was good at it, but I think Clinton is right up there.

That said - does that translate into being a great president? I don't think it does.

He wasn't a bad President - but a far cry from great. Its the same with the "first black president" thing - ??
there is no record.


For those in the gay community - would you like gay marriage? or would civil union with the same legal standing suffice?

I think that gay marriage is key. Will I settle for civil unions? Only for a LIMITED period of time. I keep going back to legal principles where separate but equal isn't equal at all. I think that the government shouldn't be in the business of defining relationships, but if they are the definition should be universal instead of exclusive.

Personally I am for removing the word 'marriage' from the law all together and having all unions recognized by the state be equally recognized and labeled unions. Let the churches sort out the marriage debate.

[Coyote]

debateman said:

[
I think that gay marriage is key. Will I settle for civil unions? Only for a LIMITED period of time. I keep going back to legal principles where separate but equal isn't equal at all. I think that the government shouldn't be in the business of defining relationships, but if they are the definition should be universal instead of exclusive.

Personally I am for removing the word 'marriage' from the law all together and having all unions recognized by the state be equally recognized and labeled unions. Let the churches sort out the marriage debate.

I have nothing to add to that. You summed it up neatly.

[redstaterebel]

jq said:

redstaterebel said:

President Clinton was/is one of the best politicians this country has ever seen. campaigning, public speaking, personable - Reagan was good at it, but I think Clinton is right up there.

That said - does that translate into being a great president? I don't think it does.

Well said RSR. I would have to agree with you fully on that. Like Reagan, Clinton is one of the greatest speakers we have had.


Still, I might argue that their ability to be great speakers and personable people really does do a LOT for the country, though on paper it is hard to show.

I'd say that Reagan AND Clinton, despite the flaws they both had, would be way better to have than either of the bushes, or carter. I'd say in the past 30 years, out of everyone we had, I would want to have Regan or Clinton again (over the others) simply because, they weren't embarrassing leaders! They were convincing! They both gave us pride. A pride that can't find with Carter, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. ALl three of those guys have been some of the most embarassing presidents we have ever had. Their presence in world politics is humiliating. But with both Bill and Reagan, that was not the case.

Clinton was a little embarrassing - lol. Actually, I remember when the Lewinsky thing was in was full force - Pres. Clinton was in Russia meeting with Yeltsin - sitting there for a press conference. Every question was about oral sex with an intern in the White House - with Yeltsin sitting right beside him.

You are correct - the great speaker, charm thing - the benefit is persuasion. Both Reagan and Clinton had it.




Gay Marriage - I only hesitate on Gay Marriage over Civil Union because of the religious aspect of "marriage". Though it is sanctioned and recognized by the state, marriage is a religious concept. We don't want government tellling the church what to do - and don't want the church telling government what to do.

I would be fine with gay marriage - but let's not mandate that a church "must" sanction it if they don't want to. Federal law should recognize civil unions with the same legal status as marriage - that should happen NOW.

This will open a can or worms though - we will have to discuss the legality of polygamy.

[Kizzume]

debateman said:

redstaterebel said:

President Clinton was/is one of the best politicians this country has ever seen. campaigning, public speaking, personable - Reagan was good at it, but I think Clinton is right up there.

That said - does that translate into being a great president? I don't think it does.

He wasn't a bad President - but a far cry from great. Its the same with the "first black president" thing - ??
there is no record.


For those in the gay community - would you like gay marriage? or would civil union with the same legal standing suffice?

I think that gay marriage is key. Will I settle for civil unions? Only for a LIMITED period of time. I keep going back to legal principles where separate but equal isn't equal at all. I think that the government shouldn't be in the business of defining relationships, but if they are the definition should be universal instead of exclusive.

Personally I am for removing the word 'marriage' from the law all together and having all unions recognized by the state be equally recognized and labeled unions. Let the churches sort out the marriage debate.

I completely agree with you on this issue, for sure.

[Kizzume]

redstaterebel said:

jq said:

Well said RSR. I would have to agree with you fully on that. Like Reagan, Clinton is one of the greatest speakers we have had.


Still, I might argue that their ability to be great speakers and personable people really does do a LOT for the country, though on paper it is hard to show.

I'd say that Reagan AND Clinton, despite the flaws they both had, would be way better to have than either of the bushes, or carter. I'd say in the past 30 years, out of everyone we had, I would want to have Regan or Clinton again (over the others) simply because, they weren't embarrassing leaders! They were convincing! They both gave us pride. A pride that can't find with Carter, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. ALl three of those guys have been some of the most embarassing presidents we have ever had. Their presence in world politics is humiliating. But with both Bill and Reagan, that was not the case.

Clinton was a little embarrassing - lol. Actually, I remember when the Lewinsky thing was in was full force - Pres. Clinton was in Russia meeting with Yeltsin - sitting there for a press conference. Every question was about oral sex with an intern in the White House - with Yeltsin sitting right beside him.

You are correct - the great speaker, charm thing - the benefit is persuasion. Both Reagan and Clinton had it.




Gay Marriage - I only hesitate on Gay Marriage over Civil Union because of the religious aspect of "marriage". Though it is sanctioned and recognized by the state, marriage is a religious concept. We don't want government tellling the church what to do - and don't want the church telling government what to do.

I would be fine with gay marriage - but let's not mandate that a church "must" sanction it if they don't want to. Federal law should recognize civil unions with the same legal status as marriage - that should happen NOW.

This will open a can or worms though - we will have to discuss the legality of polygamy.

You are correct about the polygamy thing too. Whether people want to or not, in order to make marriage equal for all, that would need to be discussed as well.

[jq]

redstaterebel said:

jq said:

Well said RSR. I would have to agree with you fully on that. Like Reagan, Clinton is one of the greatest speakers we have had.


Still, I might argue that their ability to be great speakers and personable people really does do a LOT for the country, though on paper it is hard to show.

I'd say that Reagan AND Clinton, despite the flaws they both had, would be way better to have than either of the bushes, or carter. I'd say in the past 30 years, out of everyone we had, I would want to have Regan or Clinton again (over the others) simply because, they weren't embarrassing leaders! They were convincing! They both gave us pride. A pride that can't find with Carter, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. ALl three of those guys have been some of the most embarassing presidents we have ever had. Their presence in world politics is humiliating. But with both Bill and Reagan, that was not the case.

Clinton was a little embarrassing - lol. Actually, I remember when the Lewinsky thing was in was full force - Pres. Clinton was in Russia meeting with Yeltsin - sitting there for a press conference. Every question was about oral sex with an intern in the White House - with Yeltsin sitting right beside him.

You are correct - the great speaker, charm thing - the benefit is persuasion. Both Reagan and Clinton had it.




Gay Marriage - I only hesitate on Gay Marriage over Civil Union because of the religious aspect of "marriage". Though it is sanctioned and recognized by the state, marriage is a religious concept. We don't want government tellling the church what to do - and don't want the church telling government what to do.

I would be fine with gay marriage - but let's not mandate that a church "must" sanction it if they don't want to. Federal law should recognize civil unions with the same legal status as marriage - that should happen NOW.

This will open a can or worms though - we will have to discuss the legality of polygamy.

If we play our politics smart, this should be an easy, easy issue.

Here is what my legislation would look like for the bill:

Gay Marriage is legal, however, no church is forced to participate. Only churches that are willing will marry homosexuals. For those who are not concerned about a 'traditional' ceremony, a certificate is available to obtain through a judge.

Believe me, there would be plenty of churches who would willingly marry gay people. It would be one of those situations where you would google "churches which support gay marriage" and there would be at least a couple in seattle, one or two in tacoma, etc, all throughout the country. The fewer the churches who do it, the more the ones who DO do it would thrive in popularity, which would give them incentive to do it. The certificate is the same.

In fact, people don't even need churches to have weddings. Get the certificate, sign it, and then have any kind of ceremony you want, and it all counts the same after you sign that certificate.

As for churches: In some places, you would have to drive 30-50 miles. But you would still be able to do it. Or if it isn't something you are interested in, or there are none close enough for you, you could always go to court to get married.

No church is forced to marry homosexuals-- it is simply something they can choose to participate or decline in depending on their own churches convictions. But the legal ability to do it keeps it open ended and gives homosexuals plenty of options for marriage and marriage status.