queerbychoice | Emotional Outburst While Watching the Presidential Debate

Current Mood: see above
Current Music: swearing and shooting at the TV screen with my fingers

Emotional Outburst While Watching the Presidential Debate

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The stupid fucking homophobic heterosexual white male Christian so-called representatives of mine in the stupidest fucking so-called debate just would have to go and bring up the "Is homosexuality a choice?" idiocy. AS THOUGH THAT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER WE DESERVE ANY RIGHTS. AS THOUGH TWO HETEROSEXUAL CHRISTIANS ARE IN ANY POSITION TO EVEN TRY TO SPEAK FOR ALL THE QUEERS OF THE WORLD.

Not only do I not want either one of them in charge of my country, I want them both fucking deported from it for making such a ridiculous mess of the entire election campaign. Somebody appoint me dictator on the grounds that my campaign pledge is to deport them both. Bush will be deported to a prison to be prosecuted for war crimes. Kerry can just be deported to someplace where I never have to hear about him again.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

You're starting to sound like me.

i'm almost glad i was reading snarky emails defending pornography and the sex industry from the "sex-positive" women instead.

"We're all God's children."

Except the atheists. And the agnostics. And the people who don't believe in a single primary deity who they address as "God."

Yes, but the unbelievers can abort pregnancies b/c Kerry won't push his religious beliefs onto other people. This is why he supports gay marriage. [cough]

"I pledge to only push my religious beliefs onto people when it's politically advantageous to do so!" probably wouldn't make a great campaign slogan.

And oh my nonexistent goddess, could Bush POSSIBLY have more ridiculously blatantly have totally AVOIDED answering the question about whether he wants Roe v. Wade overturned????

Okay, I personally liked Kerry's answer. Quite frankly, the guy can't out and out say "YAY FOR HOMOSEXUALITY!!!" it'd be political suicide. Why? Cuz ya gotta bunch of crazy ass christian people out there. HELLO JERRY FALWELL!
I think at least he said "I'm not running as a Catholic President. I'm running for President who happens to be a Catholic."
Yeah, I know it sucks...believe me, but I know that if he busted out "yessiree bob, homosexuality is allll good." he'd be fucked vote wise in Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, Mississippi. The ollll' bible belt. I'm not saying that all the people are going to vote that way, but the electoral vote is the thing that really makes or breaks these things, so he needs to kinda walk a fine line.
I am happy that the Amendment vs homosexual marriages has so far (I think) been denied in some states. Thank goodness.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I can't stand Bush (see my mid-Presidential debate rant!!!)

I cringed as that question started, knowing there was no way I was going to like the answer.

::votes for Gayle as Dictator For Life::

He coulda pulled a bunny out from under the ledger and said "look at the bunny. Look at the bunny."
He's an evil evil man.
Oh yeah, I was gonna say Andrew Jackson once said that the electoral college in deciding the President would only produce an evil outcome. ....... yeah.

That whole section of the debate was like a train wreck: grotesque, but you can't help but watch.

Actually, the whole debate is like that.

You're a heterosexual, right?

I think the comment thread here is an excellent playout of the "Should be put up with Kerry depriving queers of human rights for political advantage?" argument.

It wouldn't help the wishy-washy image that Republicans keep using for him.

Exactly. The entire campaign season.

"He coulda pulled a bunny out from under the ledger and said 'look at the bunny. Look at the bunny.'"

Ahahah. Somehow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened.

I was surprised that he avoided it, given the Dred Scott reference from last week.

You need to be appointed dictator? I think that's one of those positions you just grab.

Ah, but the Dred Scott reference was in carefully veiled code language so that only anti-abortion people would know what the hell he was trying to say. The rest of us would rather more logically conclude that if there's any parallel between slavery and abortion rights, it's not that fetuses with barely any brain cells are slaves, but rather that women being forced to spend nine months carrying around and feeding babies with their uteruses 24 hours a day are slaves.

Quite true, but sadly I do not have the money or the military backing to grab it effectively. So I need someone wealthy to donate an army and appoint me.

that's a fantastic thread.

I had a feeling you were gonna say that. It's a question of the lesser of two evils for myself personally and hence I am just saying that I thought Kerry just answered it in a way I wasn't as disgusted with.

Sorry if I offended you.

True.

As much as I hesitate to support Kerry, and of course I believe in voting for a candidate who represents one's veiws, but I do not believe for a second that anything will be "better" under Bush. The "Bush is a tyrant and more people will fight him" argument was used last time, and we've seen where we go from here. I have faith in the radical left, and I believe that once the "witch is dead" euphoria wears off the real activists will get right back on track giving Kerry a hard time. Leftists spoke out against and resisted Clinton, too, no matter how much he's being painted as--as I saw on someone's journal today--the "lost King Arthur of the Left." I just don't think as much of our nation was paying attention.

I have personally gotten to the point where Bush's atrocities just exhaust me, and I find it harder to repeat the same arguments against him. I'm ready to fight against someone new. The fact of the matter is, George W. Bush is up for his four-year review, and he has not served his position well. In any other job his ass would be booted to the curb. He works for me, and I want him fired.

"I have faith in the radical left, and I believe that once the "witch is dead" euphoria wears off the real activists will get right back on track giving Kerry a hard time."

I wish I had that kind of faith in leftists. Actually, I've been meaning to post a poll asking Kerry voters to reassure me that they really won't give Kerry any more of a free pass to be right-wing than they would give Bush, because I figure both Kerry voters and others all benefit from asking that question - Kerry voters benefit by helping persuade the rest of us to not be as afraid of a Kerry presidency as we currently are, and the rest of us benefit if the Kerry voters keep their pledges to really critique Kerry after he takes office (if he does).

I don't have as much (or any, really) faith in the Democrats (big D) or the "hey, I'm a liberal!" crowd, but I think there is an activist contingent in this country that has somewhat grown but has also gotten more attention and therefore re-entered the American consciousness, and now it absolutely cannot afford to back down or give out free passes, even on fear of accusations of hypocricy alone. You won't back off, and I would like to think that I won't. Everything has changed about the way we think politically--lets just hope that it lasts, and that all the people who registered to vote for the first time this year keep doing it.

I don't imagine Kerry will be a great or an important president, but I like to think that he's sort of the limbo while getting ready and working for better things to come.

More importantly, though: were they supposed to be wearing the same thing?! omglolz!!1

Well, I'll volunteer to be your first thug. But I can't promise I'll never stage a coup.

Well said. Both of them are homophobic and both lie too. Thats why I dont understand the hype that Kerry is pro-equal rights or pro-civil rights or pro-the people. Both are just as bad.

huh? what electoral vote. he is NEVER going to win in Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Kentucky or any of the South or the Bible Belt. no matter WHAT he says. even Jesus Christ wouldn't win in those states if he registered as a Democrat. he's not even *trying* to win in those states.

denied in some states? you THINK? the amendment has been passed in *every state* that has proposed it so far, and it is slated to be passed in *15 more states* before the end of the year. thank goodness? WHAT goodness? oh i'm sure for the heterosexual-supremacists it's very "good".

and guess what? the americans are quite aware that he will say anything to get votes, and that he has no real principles. and they seem to respect him LESS for it than if he just talked frankly and allowed people who disagree with him to disagree with him and people who agree with him to agree with him. hasn't this country got any idea of what the concept of "democracy" even is?? that spineless bastard.

can you imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. had taken the attitude of our so-called "allies". "No no, we can't say THAT, we'd upset the people in the SWING STATES and the BIBLE BELT and then the Democrats would NEVER get in!! Let's just stick with apartheid."

ugh. goddess help me, this country is a JOKE!!

[x] Gayle for Dictator

well, I am terribly sorry. Maybe I'm just an ignorant heterosexual. I knew as soon as I wrote what I wrote that this is what was gonna happen and so thus I bow the fuck out.
Besides I'm not even fucking American. Nope. I just watch what yall do down there. I'm from British Columbia and I was so happy that our government passed a bill that allowed same-sex marriages. Maybe I'll just stick my happy little utopia of a country.

"I will appoint judges who interpret the Constitution."

As opposed to what? Judges who WON'T interpret the Constitution? (he meant strictly)

But what really got my goat was after Kerry's answer he had the audacity to say Kerry clearly would use a litmus test (as if he would not).

PS. I did realize I had made a mistake about the amendment. I must've gotten some wrong information because somehow (maybe I was looped) I heard otherwise. Yeah, greatly wrong on that one. AND for that I'm seriously, seriously sorry. I should've double-checked that before writing it. So yes, sorry.

He means he'll appoint judges like Scalia, who will interpret the Constitution in accord with 19th-century social mores, rather than judges who might interpret it in accord with modern social mores or (God forbid!) 18th-century political ideals.

To my knowledge, Kerry isn't really hoping to win ANY of those states, since all of them go republican nearly every election. Except MAYBE Virginia.

This is why Martin Luther King Jr. never ran for elected office.

The stupid fucking homophobic heterosexual white male Christian so-called representatives of mine in the stupidest fucking so-called debate just would have to go and bring up the "Is homosexuality a choice?" idiocy. AS THOUGH THAT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER WE DESERVE ANY RIGHTS. AS THOUGH TWO HETEROSEXUAL CHRISTIANS ARE IN ANY POSITION TO EVEN TRY TO SPEAK FOR ALL THE QUEERS OF THE WORLD.

Yes!

Yes!!!!

This comment right here is, I kid you not, freaking EXACTLY why I came to your journal and looked for an entry from the night of the debate.

I was forced to be in the presence of the damn debate because I was at a place with political people and everyone else wanted to watch the damn thing.

Thank you, Gayle.

Maybe I'm just an ignorant heterosexual.

Apparently from what I can tell reading this thread, you are.

But I am also wondering if this whole thing is satire. In which case, you are really funny!!

You can still be one of God's children if you don't believe in God. Just like you can be a product of biological evolution even if you don't believe in it.

They didn't ask the question, the moderator did, and they both ducked answering the question that way -- it was clearly a way to ask "Do you support gay marriage?" without saying "Do you support gay marriage?" and you have to give both of them credit for actually answering that question instead of mumbling an aside about "choice".

Anyway, what's so much worse about Bush or Kerry trying to "speak for all the queers of the world" than Bush or Kerry making decisions that affect black people, or poor people, or foreigners, or women, or Asian college students in Pennsylvania? What are you going to do, declare representative democracy invalid if it doesn't have someone from every Gallup Poll demographic involved in every decision-making process?

And attack Bush for his doubletalk about "tolerating all people" but "protecting marriage" if you like -- the main thing I found disingenuous was that he tries to sound like he's pro-civil-unions while supporting the FMA, which contains a strong potentially anti-civil-union clause -- but I don't see what's so evil about Kerry, who supports protecting civil unions at the federal level but is leaving the definition of "marriage" to the states. Is this issue so important that the President has to institute his beliefs on a federal level *now* instead of letting state legislatures handle it (and continuing the movement to allow gay marriages that's been going on in one state after another)?

And yes, I'm heterosexual, and I'm sure that if I were gay I'd be so viscerally incensed by this issue that I, too, would abandon any consideration of getting a better candidate in office than Bush, and would cease to care about any of the other issues on the table besides this one, and so on.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Emotional Outburst While Watching the Presidential Debate

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject