Al Gores hair

[HooBoy]

His hair was thinning weeks ago.

 

I'm watching the "Lucy-Ethel" show tnoight and its clear Gore has a weave or a nice rug. And the color has changed. But then, so does his positions.

 

And the blue tie? Gimme a break. Why not a Hermes with butterflies?

 

Oh, well, I'm just off a plane and I'm watching the sad comedy that thise are the only two people we have to choose from

 

The only person who has come out FOR gays is Ralph Nader, but all Gay supporters are goofballs. :-)

 

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com

[Guest youngblood]

His hair does look fuller tonight than it has in the recent past. Maybe he used that scalp spraypaint product? To his credit, his bronzer is much more skillfully applied this evening than at the last debate.

[Guest SFJEFF]

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

 

Gore is the only real choice for our community !!!

[Guest hcg_msu]

Is Nadar really pro-gay? I don't have his position in front of me, but I remember it to be something very non-committal - saying something like, "i'm supportive, but it's not a major political issue for me". in fact, his stance on a lot of major left wing causes - abortion, women's rights - are similar in that they don't make up much of his platform at all. His main issues, from having heard him speak a couple nights ago, are economical.

 

I do agree that a vote for Nadar is a vote for Bush, even though I welcome Nadar into the campaign. Unfortunately, I think it's only ego that's keeping him alive right now as he drains votes away from Gore and gives them to Bush. If he truly cares, he would bow out and throw his support towards Gore. That's my 2 cents.

 

Gore sure did get Bush tripped up over the hate crime issue tonight, didn't he?

[+ bigjoey]

gore is no great friend of the gay community (neither is bush). gore doesn't want gay marriage; was part of "don't ask, don't tell" which got more gays out of the armed forces than regan; and all of the wonderful things he wants could have been done by the democrats during clinton's first two years when they controlled congress. why didn't clinton-gore do hate crime legislation, etc. when they controlled congress during those years? because they really didn't care and only seem to get excited about these issues when they want our money and support. i will no longer accept crumbs from the table and think i am getting a whole meal. at least bush is not a phoney on the issues. i think i'll sit it out until i get a good choice.

 

actually, the vice presidential candidates seemed more accepting of gay relationships and marriage than gore or bush. perhaps, chaney's gay daughter is bringing the issue home to him and his love for her will move him in the right direction; sort of like nixon going to china.

 

gore and the democrats need to get the message that nothing less than FULL equality is acceptable and they will not get our votes and money(gore does love those gay fundraisers) until they go all the way with full equal rights.

 

a plague on both their houses.

[Guest scotty]

BigJoey- I could not have said it better myself!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you, wholeheartedly............

Scotty

[Guest YR]

perhaps, chaney's gay daughter

>is bringing the issue home

>to him and his love

>for her will move him

>in the right direction; sort

>of like nixon going to

>china.

>

Perhaps you should check out what Newt Gingrich had to say about his gay daughter - just because they come out of the closet doesn't mean that they're going to be accepted. All issues that interest and/or involve you should be investigated and researched before you just believe the 10 second bite that you hear on television.

[Guest ProfTBear]

Couple of observations here.

 

Just because the Democrats had a political majority in Congress did not mean that Clinton/Gore controlled Congress. Little hard to pass idealogical issues that you believe in without having a solid majority that also agrees.

 

Yes, 'Don't ask Don't Tell' was a failure. But I think it was an attempt at progress when it became obvious to Clinton that ALL Democrats would not vote his way on All issues.

 

As to Dick Chaney changing his mind because of Mary: Did you see the news film clip of the report asking Mrs. Chaney about Mary coming out. Mrs. Dick C. pivoted around on the reporter and snapped viciously "She did no such thing!" HHmmm mommy certainly won't accept it or change very easy. I read a study a few years ago that said the parent who had the most difficulty with a child coming out was the father of a lesbian daughter. Prayers and hopes to you Mary C.

 

It is ashame that people's personal lives are drug thru the mud because of politics. Be you Clinton or Chaney it shouldn't happen.

[Guest ProfTBear]

I also enjoyed Bush never actually answering questions about uninsured children in Texas.

 

Found his suggestion about law protecting the sacredness of marriage scarey. Not just for what it means for us, but also just the idea that a law SHOULD protect sacred anything. Seems I remember something about the seperation of church and state somewhere.

 

Even more scarey was how casually he talked about execution, during the whole hate crime exchange.

 

You know, now that I think about it, the only thing he really said when asked about supporting gays was, "I am and have always been a tolerant person." Is that what he does with the Log Cabin Republicans - tolerate them? And that makes them feel happy and secure?

 

Oh and one last byte - It is nice to know the internet turns childrens hearts black. Boy that statement is so incorrect on so many levels and topics.

 

Scarey man! No, I cannot sit by and allow him to be elected due to my inaction. I choose to vote for a viable candidate that may at least take us forward a few steps more, rather than have someone else elect a President who will send us backwards.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Some Choice!!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Big Joey and Scotty,

 

I'll make it three...

 

And particularly...

 

>issues. i think i'll sit

>it out until i get

>a good choice.

>

 

Scotty, beam me out of this election...please!

[Guest Starbuck999]

Nader has a strange obsessive hatred of corporations and has devoted his whole life to that hatred. Everything else is secondary. His interests in labor and environmental issues are simply ways to oppose corporations. He is without question the weirdest politician is recent memory.

[+ bigjoey]

part of the problem seems to be the clinton and gore do not really have many core values except politics and the polls determine which way they go. "don't tell..." is a great example. harry truman intergrated the army without the full support of the democrats(senator gore,sr. voted with senator thurman against civil rights laws). harry truman was way ahead of the curve with brown vs topeka bd of ed not until the mid 50's and the civil rights laws not until the 60's. harry truman had some of the lowest poll numbers of any president but he followed his beliefs. courage is what clinton and gore both lack. if they believe in full rights for gays, why not lead? why not show the way?

 

when truman intergrated the army, blacks could not eat in many resturants, go to movie theaters(don't know the gaiety's policy then), live in many areas, stay in most hotels, etc. they were more separated from society than gays are today(they COULD marry).it was more of a shock for a person in the army to eat with a black, sleep with him, depend on him, etc.than we can imagine today. the army was the only place where blacks had equality(at least on paper, there was still discrimination but it was a start).

 

i want a president than can be a leader. i want a president who believes that gays should have full civil rights and acts. that person will get my money and vote.

[Will]

When I was in grade school, we always knew the names of the members of the President's cabinet. So far as I know, they were the only highly placed policy-makers in government whom the President appointed. All the rest were elected.

 

That is no longer the case. Cabinet secretaries come and go. Meanwhile, the real power brokers are all those members of the President's staff whose appointments need the ratification of neither Congress nor voters. The most famous of these gray eminences are the white-collar thugs whom Nixon gathered around himself. But we've had some other, more recent, policy makers, too, in the persons of the President's (and I mean ANY President) private attorney, Chief of Staff, and so forth.

 

What this has to do with the Realpolitik on the board this morning is this: If you want to stay at home and let somebody else elect the President who will appoint these people, that's your right as a citizen. But I am going to the polls and I am going to vote for Al Gore. That's not because I like him. But it is because, among other things, I'd rather live in a country whose executive branch is run by the kind of people that Al Gore is likely to appoint than by the kind of people that George Bush is likely to appoint.

 

I don't believe in single-issue voting, but I'd rather entrust the political well-being my my gay soul to a Democrat than to a Republican, any old day of the week.

[Bilbo]

I agree totally with Will. (Not surprising - I often do.) However, I think we also need to remember the large number of appointed judges who will likely be retiring during the next reign. Not only on the Supreme Court, but in courts all around the country. The judicial branch is now firmly entrenched in making law, in that, for one thing, they often have to reconcile laws that disagree with each other. (Take for example the recent flap here in Texas where the courts are declaring that genes, which one cannot see without some fancy testing, are more important than clothes or even sexual organs which are readily apparent to the proper people with simply a glance, in determining the sex of a person. Which disagrees with the state issuing drivers licenses and IDs to transsexuals in their new sexual identities.) Gore does not have, perhaps, to be as brave to support us here as he can just say that he is nominating the person for other reasons, who just happens, since he/she is more liberal all around, to support us.

[Guest ProfTBear]

I DO understand what you are saying and feeling. Obviously we do not have a Harry Truman in this election. If we did he would have my vote too. But we do have a wolf in compassionate conservative clothing. Who will appoint the judges, sign the laws, make the regulations, establish the policies, enforce or NOT enforce the laws as he chooses and tolerates us.

 

Choosing not to vote allows those things to become a distinct possibility. And our past becomes our future. Welcome to the past that the non-voting gay who has a message to send, ushers thru the door.

 

Send the same message by voting. Elect gay friendly congressmen and senators. Elect gay friendly legislators, mayors, council members and school board members. Better yet find them and encourage them to run for election. Give them your money as well as your vote. Those local and state forums are where the main battle is engaged.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Big Joey

 

Your getting better and better...

 

Truman had character, plenty of it!! In contrast Clinton and Gore are characters, pittiful ones at that!

[Guest EvilSwine]

As far as I'm concerned, neither of these guys is any prize. Between Bush and his mumbling and Gore taking credit for practically everything since the invention of sliced bread and both of their prior love of censoring music, movies, tv,the internet, and just about anything else if it would get them a vote... I just think they both suck, and not in a good, Matt In Vancouver kind of way. Remember that good old Tipper decided that it should be easier for parents to take less responsibility for what their children listen to and pushed for ratings on music. Lieberman, Gore's running mate, once said that the tv show "Friends" was too racy and should either be on after 11pm or only shown in movie theaters with an R rating. And as for Bush..akkk...

 

I can't believe we listen to any of these guys about anything. How did we come to this? I've got two passports and it's almost enough to make me want to use the other one permanently.

[+ Lucky]

Obviously lots of people have political opinions, and this site could turn into a real forum on gay rights, etc. Personally, I sign on to read the reviews and the discussions about escorts.

I don't care about Gore's hair, but Ricardo's or Jake's, sure.

[Will]

This particular forum -- "The Lounge" -- is for anything on our minds, and today Al and Dubya are on our minds. (Don't forget, HooBoy Himself, Our Beloved Leader, started this thread.) I don't happen to know of another place I can share ideas about these things with like-minded men. You don't have to read this thread if it doesn't interest you. The majority of the threads on both the Lounge and the Deli don't interest me. But I don't complain about it. Why should you?

[Bilbo]

Lucky, we were once compared to the guys sitting around the pickle barrel at an old general store, an image I like. Of course the talk is going to stray to things only periperally related to the main topic of escorting now and again. If you don't like it, don't read those threads. There are plenty of others.

[Guest AsswithClass]

Hate Crimes

 

I think you missed the clarity of Bush's remarks. He illustrated the absurdity of the "hate crime" clamor. A crime is a crime, no matter what the intent. We cannot determine the criminal's motivation, nor should that impact punishment. The men who commited that horrible crime in Texas will pay the ultimate price. Hate crime legislation is merely intended to pull you in on a purely emotional level. Bush won that point and America knows it.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Will,

 

I appreciate your pragmatic approach to politics given your general philosophy and the present circumstances we find ourselves in.

 

Unfortunately, I no longer have the stomach for it -- the cumulative effects of the smell of mendacity over a lifetime and a finite tolerance for it.

 

A pox on both of their houses...

 

Oh, and this is a excellent topic to exchange thoughts on in the Lounge -- a welcome diversion to the dreary hum-drum discussion of sex... um, er, did I really say that??

 

I have a few other thoughts on this subject of presidential politics (surprise there huh?), but I'm feeling lazy today and since I'm being such a Scrouge on the subject they are probably best left to languish in my attic.

[Guest Jake]

RE: Hate Crimes

 

Ass With Class ... you do have one beautiful butt! I've never fucked a Republican before .... hmmm ...

[NY Observer]

I welcome this discussion, it's a great diversion from the bickering that had been going on in my recent memory.

 

I think the solution is that we should all move to a state like Vermont, where gay unions are legal, where an openly gay man is running for US Senate against an opponent with a very favorable (if not impeccable) gay voting record and fall foliage is in full bloom.

 

Perhaps we could invite les Quebecois down to start an American version of Campus and we'd all live happily ever after.