Manhunt Founder: Gay Republican, donates to McCain

  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 13, 2008 5:18 PM GMT
    Haven't read the article in Out, yet, but here's a great summary at one of my favorite sites, Towleroad:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/mccain-takes-23.html

    A lot of food for thought. I find it sad that Manhunt boasts more members, not to mention more revenue, than probably all of our major gay organizations (HRC, The Task Force, GLAAD, etc.) COMBINED. And then its owner happens to support a candidate of a party is hellbent on taking away our rights.

    Discuss, please.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2008 5:36 PM GMT
    I saw that the owner of Manhunt.net did give 2300 to McCain and says he is a MASS Republican. A MASS Republican is generally socially liberal and fiscal conservative.

    While I am dissapointed that the owners of Manhunt.net gave to McCain, I believe they have every right to donate to whom ever they want. Just as I have a right to continue using/paying for my manhunt account.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2008 5:39 PM GMT
    EricLA saidHaven't read the article in Out, yet, but here's a great summary at one of my favorite sites, Towleroad:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/mccain-takes-23.html

    A lot of food for thought. I find it sad that Manhunt boasts more members, not to mention more revenue, than probably all of our major gay organizations (HRC, The Task Force, GLAAD, etc.) COMBINED. And then its owner happens to support a candidate of a party is hellbent on taking away our rights.

    Discuss, please.


    hmm, odd in democratic congress and yet, "we" still have no more rights than years before and still are refused the right to marry? not to mention a democratic president who did little to change your military standing and acceptance. You can't blame everyhting on "the party", pretty soon we have to question the "who" you are placing in office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2008 6:15 PM GMT
    How ironic, but not terribly surprising. At least he is a liberal on social issues. Pity there were not more like him in the Republican party.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 13, 2008 6:16 PM GMT
    BodyWork, a Democratic majority in Congress can not pass laws unless their majority is veto proof, which the current Congress is not.

    As for the Democratic president who failed at changing the US military's exclusionary policy, I agree. He didn't adequately prepare for the political battle, nor did he initially enlist the community's feedback or buy-in on the issue. That said, it brought gay issues to the front page of newspapers nationwide where previosly our issues were invisible. We have come a long way.

    But, yes, I can blame "the party" since due to the evangelical hijacking of the Republican party, pushing out a lot of moderate Republicans. I was a Republican myself years ago, until I realized that cause was lost. I believe I could vote for a Republican under the right conditions, but I just don't see that being the case any time in the forseeable future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2008 6:25 PM GMT
    EricLA saidBodyWork, a Democratic majority in Congress can not pass laws unless their majority is veto proof, which the current Congress is not.

    As for the Democratic president who failed at changing the US military's exclusionary policy, I agree. He didn't adequately prepare for the political battle, nor did he initially enlist the community's feedback or buy-in on the issue. That said, it brought gay issues to the front page of newspapers nationwide where previosly our issues were invisible. We have come a long way.

    But, yes, I can blame "the party" since due to the evangelical hijacking of the Republican party, pushing out a lot of moderate Republicans. I was a Republican myself years ago, until I realized that cause was lost. I believe I could vote for a Republican under the right conditions, but I just don't see that being the case any time in the forseeable future.


    my point is, it's better to be educated in your voting -- I wasn't siding with a party in my comments.
    The point inteded is that too many of us vote for "thier party", simply to ensure the opposing party doesn't win - like this is some sort of football game.
    To date, I hear more "reasons to vote for Obama" defined as reason's to keep a republican out of office as opposed to a real support of Obama.
    Not to say some are not well read on both sides of the cadidates, but most just their party in office.

    so again, make sure you are voting for the who not the what.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2008 6:29 PM GMT
    EricLA saidHaven't read the article in Out, yet, but here's a great summary at one of my favorite sites, Towleroad:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/mccain-takes-23.html

    A lot of food for thought. I find it sad that Manhunt boasts more members, not to mention more revenue, than probably all of our major gay organizations (HRC, The Task Force, GLAAD, etc.) COMBINED. And then its owner happens to support a candidate of a party is hellbent on taking away our rights.

    Discuss, please.


    Sleaze begets sleaze. I'm not surprised.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 13, 2008 6:42 PM GMT
    BodyWork,

    Agree with your last comments. Let's face it, a lot of people vote for very supperficial reasons. My sister, who is still a German citizen even though she has lived in the US for over 40 years, years ago told me she wouldn't have voted for Al Gore because he looked like her ex-husband. Fortunately, she is now dating a Democrat, and though she lives in Texas, can not wait till Bush is out of office.

    Eric