News Is Bill Clinton still relevant in politics?

[Zero]

Do we have to keep hearing about him, especially as some sort of 'defense' for Bush?

 

[N_Quire]

I don't mind hearing about him. I liked Clinton a lot and I like his wife even more. Whatever he did with that intern does not bother me in the slightest.

 

[drag]

I can't say much about Clinton's overall political
performance - I think it was good, but I'm no
expert. However, in addition he is also clearly
a very wise man and he has great personal charm.
Bush, who can't even remember the name of other
countries' leaders when he visits them and
probably wouldn't find most of them on the map,
is another story. Although, when his personality
is left alone I think his whole administration
ain't bad at all.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Clinton was also kind of oily and smooth, and not as liberal as he made out to be to get votes. And, his personal life is none of our business..for all we know, Hillary LIKED Bill to sleep with other women!

But, nothing that Clinton did or is accused of doing is excuse, rationale, or justification for what Bush is doing.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Still though, people need something to compare to, historically, and the older you are, the more you remember/have to use, in that manner, otherwise you will have had to study it, and that is, sorta, less complete, then if you actually lived during it.

But I liked the Guy too, Good Diplomat, Good Diplomatic skills set, and the Monica thing only made her richer, and embarressed them, (Sadly) so...

 

[Andy]

I was too young to remember anything about George Bush seniors presidency so i was wondering how junior compares to his dad?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
I was too young to remember anything about George Bush seniors presidency so i was wondering how junior compares to his dad?

Poppy was just as goofy as junior...but a much better president. Although he wasn't much of a campaigner, he was at least experienced in leadership and politics, unlike his son.

 

[Mulder]

Bush has done with Saddam what Clinton should have done 10 years ago.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Mulder
Bush has done with Saddam what Clinton should have done 10 years ago.

I agree, getting rid of Saddam makes him a good enough President, IMO. I don't see what President Bush has done wrong, it's not like he inheritted that great of an economy as it is, I think he handled 9-11 as good as any President could have done, and he is like any other person, he doesn't know all the leaders names, or what country the names go to, half my teachers don't even remember my name and I'm in a small school (less then 1000 students), people don't can't remember everything

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mulder
Bush has done with Saddam what Clinton should have done 10 years ago.

So? It is about time that Bush II deposed the vicious dictator that his father supported? And what does that have to do with Clinton?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
So? It is about time that Bush II deposed the vicious dictator that his father supported? And what does that have to do with Clinton?

I'll answer for him, the conversation turned to Bush, you even posted a response to a question about Bush...and yes it is about time,

So?

Senior sold Saddam weapons, I believe that was the support you speak of, but if memory serves me [it may not], didn't Senior also try to assassinate him? And it is clear that George Bush Senior and Saddam's relationship wasn't all that good, as Saddam did try to assassinate Bush Senior.

 

[GENIERE]

I absolutely despise Clinton. I find his wife equally, if not more, despicable. I thought Carter to be an incompetent fool but he didn’t revolt me. I guess I should be pleased with Clinton, as he presented control of the Congress to the Republicans.

Clinton is completely devoid of principle. I could care less about his lack of personal principles but Paula Jones tells us he had no balls. Perhaps that explains his lack of political conviction. I believe he took ever measure, legal or illegal, to get re-elected and committed treason in the process. He did this for personal gain and not to help fellow Democrats who he left hanging dry. He did not care whether Democratic legislation passed or failed, he simply wanted to enjoy the trappings of the Presidential office at any cost.

Regards

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
I absolutely despise Clinton. I find his wife equally, if not more, despicable. I thought Carter to be an incompetent fool but he didn’t revolt me. I guess I should be pleased with Clinton, as he presented control of the Congress to the Republicans.

Clinton is completely devoid of principle. I could care less about his lack of personal principles but Paula Jones tells us he had no balls. Perhaps that explains his lack of political conviction. I believe he took ever measure, legal or illegal, to get re-elected and committed treason in the process. He did this for personal gain and not to help fellow Democrats who he left hanging dry. He did not care whether Democratic legislation passed or failed, he simply wanted to enjoy the trappings of the Presidential office at any cost.

Regards

Ok, sure, you have your opinions...but why is it that people will use posts like this as a defense of Bush, another person with deep personality flaws, and even less ability and aptness in a presidential role?c At least Clinton knew a thing or two about policy; Bush's governor stint was less taxing on his brain than being mayor of Chicago.

 

[damgo]

I always kinda liked Clinton, even if he was sort of a man-slut. He was intelligent, knew what he was doing, and provided wonderful comedy. Bush (junior), I am still trying to come to grips with the fact that somehow he was elected President. I mean, the more I learn about him, the scarier it is -- there is a reason he never talks to the press or anyone publicly; it's cause he's pretty dang dumb and can barely manage English. Guess that's what decades of alcoholism'll do to you. I always thought he should be in one of those "this is your brain on drugs" instead of in the White House. Luckily though his Cabinet -- esp Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld -- seems bright and strong enough to make up for it.

Hmm, I think a lot of the reason conservatives hate Clinton is because he was clever enough and constantly outmaneuvered them. He kept doing these outrageous things, which would have left most politicians dead in the water; yet everytime the Republicans thought they'd surely nail him after this, they somehow found themselves looking foolish while Clinton's approval ratings soeared ever-higher. Must've been very frustrating.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
But, nothing that Clinton did or is
accused of doing is excuse, rationale,
or justification for what Bush is doing.

You're right, why is Bush doing all that ?!
Let it go ! Let'em blow a few more buildings !

While I agree that Bush is not a smart man...
His administration worked pretty well in the
more apparent ways at least, I believe, so far.
You have to realize of course that military policy
is the most abvious one, there are many other more
important aspects of each administration that remain
relativly obscure and require close and often
historic inspection.

I do not understand what this thread is meant to ask.
I do not see how Clinton is a deffense for Bush
or how he may be used in this manner.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Do we have to keep hearing about him, especially as some sort of 'defense' for Bush?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the existence of this thread?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag

I do not understand what this thread is meant to ask.
I do not see how Clinton is a deffense for Bush
or how he may be used in this manner.

Live long and prosper.

I've seen it all over the boards. You critize Bush, you hear a reply of how Clinton was worse. You try to bring up the fact that Israeli soldiers have a lousy track record of gunning down children, and the defence is that there are suicide bombers. Constantly, instead of taking a look at both sides, people use the flaws of one side to deflect criticism of their own side.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Am I the only one who sees the irony in the existence of this thread?

No, russ...just you. Care to contribute something to the discussion?

 

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Zero
So? It is about time that Bush II deposed the vicious dictator that his father supported? And what does that have to do with Clinton?

Clinton should have gone back into Iraq to deal with Saddam a couple of years after the Gulf War when he didn't comply with the restrictions imposed.

 

[Zero]

Oh, wait, I see irony now...I mention Bush, you all want to talk aboutClinton. I mention cClinton, you all want to talk about Bush...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No, russ...just you. Care to contribute something to the discussion?

That was my contribution, Zero. If you don't want to talk about Clinton, don't bring him up. Thats why its ironic.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
I've seen it all over the boards. You critize Bush, you hear a reply of how Clinton was worse. You try to bring up the fact that Israeli soldiers have a lousy track record of gunning down children, and the defence is that there are suicide bombers.

This response is natural. When a person is presented with something of that sort and they agree with the side that is being critisized, they present someone worse, as if to remove blame. You see it from kids to adults, "Teacher: Did you throw that rock? Student: Johnny threw it first!" It's only human to take the focus off you or the party you support.

I think the comparison comes up between Bush and Clinton so much because everybody knows what Clinton did wrong, it wouldn't be very affective if you compared Bush and say, Andrew Jackson because nobody knows anything Andrew Jackson did wrong, or don't remember.

Constantly, instead of taking a look at both sides, people use the flaws of one side to deflect criticism of their own side.

Aren't they actually adding the other side to the debate, which in turn would put both sides under scrutiny?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule

Aren't they actually adding the other side to the debate, which in turn would put both sides under scrutiny?

No, its apples and oranges. What Bush screws up needs to be looked at, not swept under teh rug with a bunch of right/left polarization. Bush is a lousy president. Period. Whatever kind of president we've had before is irrelevant. Our last president could have been Mickey Mouse, for all I care; the Bush administration is still the worst thing to happen to this country in a long time.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
You try to bring up the fact that Israeli
soldiers have a lousy track record of
gunning down children, and the defence
is that there are suicide bombers.

That's a bit off topic, I believe.
But then, if you make off topic remarks
I'll make a quick off topic response:
First of all it's simply not true. And the
fact that there is no actual formally
proclaimed data like this only serves to
expose a bias. Second, put ANY other army
in the world in the same situation as the
IDF and the number would be higher (which
may be seen as my bias but I know a lot
about the IDF, so for me at least - it's
absolutely true).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
That's a bit off topic, I believe.
But then, if you make off topic remarks
I'll make a quick off topic response:
First of all it's simply not true. And the
fact that there is no actual formally
proclaimed data like this only serves to
expose a bias. Second, put ANY other army
in the world in the same situation as the
IDF and the number would be higher (which
may be seen as my bias but I know a lot
about the IDF, so for me at least - it's
absolutely true).

Live long and prosper.

Read any paper outside teh U.S. and you'll see consytant reports about Israel..but that IS off topic.


BTW, I'm not saying that Clnton was a great man, or a great president...He was just generally crappy, which in a politician isn't too bad.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Read any paper outside teh U.S.

I have...

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Read any paper outside teh U.S. and you'll see consytant reports about Israel..but that IS off topic.

Most nations hate Israel, so the chances of you reading an unbiased newspaper are slim, no?

 

[Tog_Neve]

No, its apples and oranges. What Bush screws up needs to be looked at, not swept under teh rug with a bunch of right/left polarization. Bush is a lousy president. Period. Whatever kind of president we've had before is irrelevant. Our last president could have been Mickey Mouse, for all I care; the Bush administration is still the worst thing to happen to this country in a long time.

And you state this as a fact based on what?
What facts do you have that Bush is a lousy President?
And more correctly what drives that opinion?
As well as why would you state he is the worst thing to happen to this country?
I know that is more off topic and my apologies for that.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
No, its apples and oranges. What Bush screws up needs to be looked at, not swept under teh rug with a bunch of right/left polarization. Bush is a lousy president. Period. Whatever kind of president we've had before is irrelevant. Our last president could have been Mickey Mouse, for all I care; the Bush administration is still the worst thing to happen to this country in a long time.

I disagree, if prior administrations show similar weaknesses, or outrages, and/or if their policies led to issues that later had to be resolved by the next administration then it would be important to bring up the prior administration for two reasons. 1. if indeed it is an issue with all administrations in varying degrees then we need to look at why this is and how it can be resolved, across the board and not in a partisian manner. 2. If the issue is due to another administrations errors or actions then it's not really "fair" to debate without shedding some light on that as well.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Most nations hate Israel, so the chances of you reading an unbiased newspaper are slim, no?

Hmmmm...you say it, I've not seen evidence. Most countries aren't attached to the hip with Isreal...off topic, though.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I disagree, if prior administrations show similar weaknesses, or outrages, and/or if their policies led to issues that later had to be resolved by the next administration then it would be important to bring up the prior administration for two reasons. 1. if indeed it is an issue with all administrations in varying degrees then we need to look at why this is and how it can be resolved, across the board and not in a partisian manner. 2. If the issue is due to another administrations errors or actions then it's not really "fair" to debate without shedding some light on that as well.

There ARE good reasons...however, saying that one administration was bad does not automatically absolve the next of any blame for it's own actions. Blaming Bush for the economy is fine, because his tax cut was a mistake which squandered a surplus. But, on the other hand, it is also appropriate to mention that the stock market 'bubble' grew under Clinton, and he did nothing to stop the corporate corruption that Bush is simply continuing.

It is not,IMO, appropriate to bring up Clinton's infidelities when mentioning Bush's lies about the economy; apples and oranges.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Whatever kind of president we've had before is irrelevant. Our last president could have been Mickey Mouse, for all I care; the Bush administration is still the worst thing to happen to this country in a long time.

Heh. Zero, that's self-contradictory. How can Bush be the worst president we've had in a long time if we don't know how good or bad the presidents that came before him were?

I disagree, if prior administrations show similar weaknesses, or outrages, and/or if their policies led to issues that later had to be resolved by the next administration then it would be important to bring up the prior administration for two reasons.

Self-evident isn't what it should be on this board, kat...

Blaming Bush for the economy is fine, because his tax cut was a mistake which squandered a surplus.

So is the fact that the economic slowdown started almost six months before he took office is irrelevant to the economic situation in his presidency? Without the tax cut, would there have been a surplus?

It is not,IMO, appropriate to bring up Clinton's infidelities when mentioning Bush's lies about the economy; apples and oranges.

For the record, Zero, Clinton's infidelties and the crimes he comitted as a result are a small part of the reason I disliked him so much. I was in the military and his outright contempt and dereliction of duty while in office are reprehensible and inexcusable.

 

[Zero]

For the record, Russ, I was in the military at the same time you were, and Clinton's 'evil' was more hype than reality. His dereliction of duty? In what way? And what does it have to do with Bush's derelictions of duty?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
For the record, Russ, I was in the military at the same time you were, and Clinton's 'evil' was more hype than reality. His dereliction of duty? In what way? And what does it have to do with Bush's derelictions of duty?

Apples and oranges, why are you comparing Bush and Clinton's derelictions. You slight Clinton's neglect with Bush's, you spoke against this. You also push the topic back to Bush, from Clinton.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Apples and oranges, why are you comparing Bush and Clinton's derelictions. You slight Clinton's neglect with Bush's, you spoke against this. You also push the topic back to Bush, from Clinton.

Pot
K
E
T
T
L
E
black

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
For the record, Russ, I was in the military at the same time you were, and Clinton's 'evil' was more hype than reality. His dereliction of duty? In what way? And what does it have to do with Bush's derelictions of duty?

I'm talking about Clinton's actions while president, Zero. Somalia is a biggie for me. Also, his choice of advisors was absolutely awful - so bad some had to resign. The Sec AF called marines "extremists" and was forced to resign for example.

Clinton's first act when he took office was to try to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Not a move calculated to gain the loyalty of his troops. The "don't ask, don't tell" compromise is ok, but not great - but fortunately nowhere near full acceptance.

When you hate the military and appoint advisors that hate the military, bad things happen to the military and with the military.

 

[damgo]

Off-topic question: How is pushing for integration of gays into the military different from pushing for racial integration in the military? What about lesbians in the military?

And can you give some context on that AF secretary quote? It wasn't just typical interservice bashing?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm talking about Clinton's actions while president, Zero. Somalia is a biggie for me. Also, his choice of advisors was absolutely awful - so bad some had to resign. The Sec AF called marines "extremists" and was forced to resign for example.

Clinton's first act when he took office was to try to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Not a move calculated to gain the loyalty of his troops. The "don't ask, don't tell" compromise is ok, but not great - but fortunately nowhere near full acceptance.

When you hate the military and appoint advisors that hate the military, bad things happen to the military and with the military.

OK< you hate Clinton because you are a homophobe...you could have skipped the foreplay and just said that from the beginning. Any other groups of people you hate?

 

[Tog_Neve]

Zero,

OK< you hate Clinton because you are a homophobe...you could have skipped the foreplay and just said that from the beginning. Any other groups of people you hate?

No offense but keep the personal bashings aside. Russ did not state that he felt homosexuality in the military was a bad thing or that he was against it. What he said was that the move to attempt to openly allow homosexuals into the militar was "not a move calculated to gain loyalty of his troops." Which is a fact. A large portion of the military was against homosexuals in the military...just as they were against women in combat. The fact that the policy is now "Dont ask don't tell" is a compromise to those actions. If Clinton had his way then they would have been openly and his desire is that they would have been warmly greeted.
His military advisors tried to push to not get that agenda met. The military advisors are generally more interested in the cohesion of the units under their command, and felt that not only women but also homosexuals could jeapordize their unit integrity by possible rifts within the unit.
This is fact so you can stop trying to bring in personal name calling and such.

As far as me:
I dislike Clinton for many reasons. One of which was the treating of the military while he was in office. We always hear about how the military is underpaid...he did nothing to rectify that...pay raises while he was in office were cut back to being equivalent to infation rates.
Clinton cut spending to out intelligence agencies...knowing threat of terrorist attacks was increasing...even having been victim to a few outside of CONUS.
And IMO Clinton did not respect his office. He used it in order to gain more in terms of financial aspects, and personal goals...ie getting a piece of ass because he was the Pres. He used his office for his own personal gains and not as a service to the country. Is he the first to do this...no...could it be the agenda of all the presidents? sure...however other Presidents take the office seriously while they are in there...and I do not believe that he did. I think he used his powers for his own personal gain and not the interest of country.
He got extremely lucky to come in under an economic boom time in the 90's. And that is the only thing that kept him in office. The ignorant masses tried to credit him with the good times of the 90's when he had nothing to do with them...they just happened. Just as Bush is going to get blamed for the collapse of that bubble even though it started before his term did...and it was destined to happen anyways.

Tog

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve
Zero,

No offense but keep the personal bashings aside. Russ did not state that he felt homosexuality in the military was a bad thing or that he was against it. What he said was that the move to attempt to openly allow homosexuals into the militar was "not a move calculated to gain loyalty of his troops." Which is a fact. A large portion of the military was against homosexuals in the military...just as they were against women in combat. The fact that the policy is now "Dont ask don't tell" is a compromise to those actions. If Clinton had his way then they would have been openly and his desire is that they would have been warmly greeted.
His military advisors tried to push to not get that agenda met. The military advisors are generally more interested in the cohesion of the units under their command, and felt that not only women but also homosexuals could jeapordize their unit integrity by possible rifts within the unit.
This is fact so you can stop trying to bring in personal name calling and such.

As far as me:
I dislike Clinton for many reasons. One of which was the treating of the military while he was in office. We always hear about how the military is underpaid...he did nothing to rectify that...pay raises while he was in office were cut back to being equivalent to infation rates.
Clinton cut spending to out intelligence agencies...knowing threat of terrorist attacks was increasing...even having been victim to a few outside of CONUS.
And IMO Clinton did not respect his office. He used it in order to gain more in terms of financial aspects, and personal goals...ie getting a piece of ass because he was the Pres. He used his office for his own personal gains and not as a service to the country. Is he the first to do this...no...could it be the agenda of all the presidents? sure...however other Presidents take the office seriously while they are in there...and I do not believe that he did. I think he used his powers for his own personal gain and not the interest of country.
He got extremely lucky to come in under an economic boom time in the 90's. And that is the only thing that kept him in office. The ignorant masses tried to credit him with the good times of the 90's when he had nothing to do with them...they just happened. Just as Bush is going to get blamed for the collapse of that bubble even though it started before his term did...and it was destined to happen anyways.

Tog

Does any of this make Bush a good president, though. Is just not being Clinton mean anything, or can Bush simply be a different model of 'lousy president'?

 

[Tog_Neve]

Does any of this make Bush a good president, though. Is just not being Clinton mean anything, or can Bush simply be a different model of 'lousy president'?

Nope it does not make him a good Pres...nor does it make him a bad Pres. The economy is in a slump because it was going to be in a slump. It could have been worse if not for the work that not only the past but current administrations are doing to attempt to stimulate it and turn it around. As far as Bush not being Clinton meaning anything. No it only means that Bush is not Clinton..and all I can say to it is...Thank God. Now maybe something could get done...and it is.
Yes Bush can be a model of a lousy President...or at least in your opinion a lousy Pres. And if I may ask again...what are you basing that on?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve
Nope it does not make him a good Pres...nor does it make him a bad Pres. The economy is in a slump because it was going to be in a slump. It could have been worse if not for the work that not only the past but current administrations are doing to attempt to stimulate it and turn it around. As far as Bush not being Clinton meaning anything. No it only means that Bush is not Clinton..and all I can say to it is...Thank God. Now maybe something could get done...and it is.
Yes Bush can be a model of a lousy President...or at least in your opinion a lousy Pres. And if I may ask again...what are you basing that on?

I base this on the PATRIOT ACT, which is a dilution of civil rights and liberties, Ashcrofts attacks on freedom, general government corruption, the fact that the administration is peppered with exectutives from teh worst of the 'Enrons'.

I did note that Clinton did his share towards the current economy...Bush is simply continuing the bad policy.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
Off-topic question: How is pushing for integration of gays into the military different from pushing for racial integration in the military? What about lesbians in the military?

And can you give some context on that AF secretary quote? It wasn't just typical interservice bashing?

Lesbians are gay too, damgo. And its an issue because of privacy concerns, ie. living conditions. And ehh, I'll need to look for that quote. I don't remember the context.

OK< you hate Clinton because you are a homophobe...you could have skipped the foreplay and just said that from the beginning. Any other groups of people you hate?

I'm sure its very comfortable to believe that, Zero. And personal attacks are reprehensible for anyone, but worse for you since you are a moderator. Shame on you.

No offense but keep the personal bashings aside. Russ did not state that he felt homosexuality in the military was a bad thing or that he was against it. What he said was that the move to attempt to openly allow homosexuals into the militar was "not a move calculated to gain loyalty of his troops." Which is a fact.

To clarify, I *DO* think having homosexuals serve openly is a bad thing and that does NOT mean I am a homophobe. Unless, zero, you define a homophobe as anyone who is uncomfortable showering or dressing next to a homosexual - which probably includes 90% of heterosexuals. Thanks for the support though, Tog.

 

[russ_watters]

Damgo, slight error, it was the Assistant Secretary of the Army, not Air Force. http://www.th-record.com/1997/11-14-97/armymari.htm is a link to an AP story. It appears to have been a little bit of interservice rivaly, but she went over the line.

 

[damgo]

got the link, LOL -- doesn't exactly support your thesis that Clinton's advisors hated the military, though. Incidentally, I just read a Salon article with this exchange from the recent White House correpondents' dinner:

Al Franken: Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?
Paul Wolfowitz: F*** you.

Pretty funny.

re: gays in the military, it seems to me this would be the exact same argument raised about racial integration -- white troops didn't want to have to shower/dress/be around blacks. It made them uncomfortable. Remember "separate but equal"?

Personally, I think this is something that people need to get over; and further that being put in that circumstance will get them over it pretty damn quick. Just like as with racial integration, once you are in close contact with gays for a while and realize they're not going to try and jump you on the spot, it becomes a non-issue.

On a random note, I think it's sort of odd that so many guys get so uncomfortable by the notion that a homosexual might find them sexy. I mean, if some unattractive girl hits on me, I'm flattered and certainly not bothered by it, even though I may have zero interest in doing anything sexual with her. Same thing when gay guys hit on me, I'm like "sorry, I'm not gay, kinda wish I was 'cause then I'd be getting some play now." It just seems a strange thing to get creeped out by ...

 

[Tog_Neve]

Damgo -
That link may not have but many other things do support it
"New York Post reported Sunday (date unknown but after Clinton admin) that a full 89% of Clinton budget cuts under the president's 'Reinventing Government' initiative came at the expense of the armed forces."

Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger contends " that President Clinton had reduced U.S. military forces by approximately 50% during his eight years in office" This from his book "In the Arena".

And there are other tidbits and comments throughout as well as actions taken that support that Clinton was anti-military.

On a random note, I think it's sort of odd that so many guys get so uncomfortable by the notion that a homosexual might find them sexy. I mean, if some unattractive girl hits on me, I'm flattered and certainly not bothered by it, even though I may have zero interest in doing anything sexual with her. Same thing when gay guys hit on me, I'm like "sorry, I'm not gay, kinda wish I was 'cause then I'd be getting some play now." It just seems a strange thing to get creeped out by ...

Yes and no IMO. I don't know if it is so much that they would get wierded out if another guy came up and made comments. But more so the naked in front of others part. Me personally I know several homosexuals..both male and female. And although I have never been uncomfortable around them to talk with them sit with them and consider several to be close friends. I would not feel comfortable changing clothes or showering with the other guys. This also goes to state that I would not feel comfortable changing clothes or showering with hetrosexual women that I either am not intimate with at that time or do not know. So for some there are different reasonings.
And I think often it comes down to at times that "Why should I be force fed that persons life style, and be forced to adapt, why can't they be forced to adapt" type of mentallity as well. And the "Dont ask Dont tell" policy did not change much. Implimented a policy that officially one cannot ask about sexual preference. And also not to state sexual preference. Basically just keep your mouth shut and conform, on both sides of the table.

Tog

 

[Zero]

This one's so far off topic...