Blogcritics: Comments on Watch out Bush... the kooks are comin'!

Comment by RJ

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:16:09 EST

"Lady Liberty is on our side. Trudy and her cake-baking church-going cronies are not." Actually... A small number of unelected judges in Massachusetts are on your side. The vast majority of everybody else isn't.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:08:04 EST

Boom, I thought I'd figured out how to write a decent rant. I stand corrected.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:36:27 EST

I laughed so hard, I cried.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:39:56 EST

Yet again, I read a topic and yet again, I see "comments" that are beyond the pale. Some may find them entertaining or "good natured" on some level, but others find them completely repulsive. It's no wonder some have taken their leave -- who wants to be subjected to the personalites who create such filth? Once more I suggest an "ignore" mechanism, filter, what have you. Please. Pretty please. I am begging.

Comment by MCH

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:39:57 EST

Re comment #20; Just exactly what does "...no male that found you attracting enough..." mean?? Is that another Bush-ism??

Comment by andy marsh

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:05:50 EST

not that there's anything wrong with that!!! As Jerry would say!

Comment by bhw

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:04:00 EST

I'm sure it is a wonderful thing. Sexuality in general is a wonderful thing. I just play for the other team. But I support gay rights very vocally and am, as a result, often "accused" of being gay, as if being gay would make me less of a person. Thanks for continuing the trend.

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:46:11 EST

I know better than to say anything to Eric Olsen about this. He will respond that Gee Dubs is being "good-natured."

Comment by bhw

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:28:08 EST

Boom, I guess you just need a good woman to set you straight! It's all becoming clear now. Alas, I'm taken, but I could send a friend or two your way for a good, old fashioned het-er-o-sex-u-al schtooping.

Comment by Gee Dubs

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:25:05 EST

Baby, You are not subjected to my religious belief. Tomorrow, you will have the same 'issues' to deal with.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:12:21 EST

You cannot deny that there is a tremendous level of discontent in all that you say. Discontent can be defined as longing for a better set of circumstances. Since I long for a time to not be subjected to YOUR religious beliefs, in that aspect, I could be considered to be discontented, I suppose. I have a feeling that you found scorn in your hetrosexual relationships and because of that sexual disenfranchisement you have turned to a gay one. Well, your feeling that you base your judgement on, is erroneous, because you don't know the order of any of my relationships. Since your feeling is wrong, the judgement you base it on, is wrong as well. You need to seek out help...and it's not around here Not in this country, I agree!

Comment by Gee Dubs

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:05:54 EST

Maybe in the the lifetimes of your great great great great great great great (ad infintum) will you be able to repeal the amendment until then perhaps you should give it a rest. You cannot deny that there is a tremendous level of discontent in all that you say. You blame the repubs or the religious right or some ignorant person who doesn't agree with you. I am just willing to bet that if you were a hetrosexual that you wouldn't be so angry with everyone else. I have a feeling that you found scorn in your hetrosexual relationships and because of that sexual disenfranchisement you have turned to a gay one. ONce again, Baby, it is not my fault that you are sexually disenfranchised. You need to seek out help...and it's not around here)

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:51:41 EST

As I said before, there is a direct collalation between sexual unfulfillment or disenfranchisement as I like to say and your level of disatifaction. Gee Dubs, I have been with women. I have been with men. I know fulfillment. Your thought that gay people are motivated by sexual frustration is going on the prejudice that a gay person is motivated solely by sex. Sexual orientation is not a verb. It is not an action. It is a part of your inner self. It involves love, bonding, and commitment, for many people. From any relationship founded out of love, a family can grow, believe it or not, because it's happening by the millions in the gay community. These families are legitimate families. They involve children, they involve interacting with the PTA, they involve two names on the checks in the checkbook, they involve co-signing on insurance forms and mortgages, leases, etc. We can't just pretend our families don't exist to make other people happy. I think that whoever Bush puts in the Supreme Court will determine whether equality is reached in my lifetime or not. Amendments can be repealed. Time is on our side. Ultimately we will win and ultimately the history books of our great great grandchildren will reflect the proper perspective of which side is on the side of humanity, love and all that is good within us, and which side is on the side of hatred.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:42:51 EST

What you're talking about mark is a kinda PETA for gays. uhm....no. i'm talking about equal protection.

Comment by Gee Dubs

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:30:03 EST

Eleven states voted to ban same sex marriage. California courts un-did the homosexual marriages in that state. Mass legislature has stopped the nonsense in that state. Now it is just a matter of time before we have a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. Where ever one looks they can find examples where one society has shown less and less tolerance for the legitmacy your kind. This isn't gay bashing or homophobic...it's reality. As I said before, there is a direct collalation between sexual unfulfillment or disenfranchisement as I like to say and your level of disatifaction. There is nothing anyone can do to help you with your problem. Not even Darwin could explain it. What you're talking about mark is a kinda PETA for gays. It doesn't address the tolerance issue. BHW, thank you for taking note.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:04:38 EST

Gee Dubs, glad to see you're posting your bigotry under you own name these days.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:55:22 EST

Can you think of a single reason why we should? because the constitutionality of a law has nothing to do with the will of the majority?

Comment by Gee Dubs

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:43:21 EST

Baby, You got it bad. Here's the crux of it, it is a clash of life style and not religions. Most of America is enfranchised. They have the choice to have sex with anyone they want. For the most part, they choose partners that will make a good father or mother. They want to have children and raise them. They want grandchildren and such. In short, they want little girls to wear the pink tutus and not hair legged men. It only has to do with one thing...tolerance. Can our society tolerate yours? Can you think of a single reason why we should?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:06:07 EST

If you gay fellows have accomplished so much why do you continue complaining? Because discrimination and prejudice and ignorance still exist. Why can't you be 'gay' instead filled with so much discontent. How does one be 'gay'? Society is attacking my family, I'm doing what any father would and defending or fighting for the legal rights and protection for my family. I think your anger is directly related to your feeling of being sexually disenfranchised. My anger is at so many people who want the government to promote their religion. There is nothing anyone can do about this. There is, we keep fighting the good fight. If someone wants to believe I am a sinner, that's their right. They do not have the right to have my government condemn me because of their religious belief. That is a theocracy. Right now, we've been dealt a major setback, but we will keep fighting the fight for liberty for all, for as long as we are here.

Comment by Gee Dubs

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:29:27 EST

The fact that I have male genitalia makes turning my underwear around difficult. You would know Baby. Glad to see you over come adversity. If you gay fellows have accomplished so much why do you continue complaining? Why can't you be 'gay' instead filled with so much discontent. I think your anger is directly related to your feeling of being sexually disenfranchised. There is nothing anyone can do about this.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:04:35 EST

it is usually the disenfranchised that does all the hollering...not the victors. I'm not talking about hollering. I'm talking about violence. And statistics show us that when anti-gay agendas pass, there is an increase in homophobic violence. I don't think it is wise to trust someone who has lost so many legal battles. Just one man's opinion. I don't really know how many legal battles were lost and how many were won for comparison. When reading that statement, that should be a given, it was a generalization. We have won so much, from the Supreme Court knocking down sodomy laws, to the Mass. marriage, to protection in jobs, etc. It's actually the legal battles we WIN, it's the vote we lose. So I should modify that statement. Lady Liberty is on our side. Trudy and her cake-baking church-going cronies are not. Like your underware, you got things turn around Baby. The fact that I have male genitalia makes turning my underwear around difficult. I don't expect you to understand, Gee Dubs.

Comment by Gee Dubs

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:07:27 EST

Try this hat on for size...it is usually the disenfranchised that does all the hollering...not the victors. It's the gays in America that usually get it backwards. I don't think it is wise to trust someone who has lost so many legal battles. Just one man's opinion. Like your underware, you got things turn around Baby.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:53:14 EST

There may be some people so angry over defeat, that they resort to violence. I would think though, our government is used to being ready for that though. I would agree with your blog overall, but disagree that it is of MORE likelihood than kookiness from the victors. America usually gets it backwards. It's the ones on top who are the most violent and emboldened. Trust me, as a minority who has lost more legal battles than won, I know this to be true. and so it begins.

Comment by Yensid

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:26:38 EST

My point is the anger of the defeated. Some people will deal with it and move on. Considering the size of our population there is a sizable minority that will go beyond moving on or revolting in a possitive way for change. They will get militant and well... kooky! That is all I am saying. And yes, I agree with the first comment. Part of the craziness might come out in the form of gay bashing, abortionist killing, stem cell scientist killling, etc. because people feel emboldened now that their views have been "justified" by the majority.

Comment by simon hb

Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:44:56 EST

Erm... actually, he appears to have killed himself because he was having an affair on top of his engaged-to-be-married relationship; the bush/ground zero thing seems to be the usual suicide behaviour of making sure they get noticed when they go (see also that bloke who took six other people with him by parking his car on a railway line in Berkshire on Saturday). I'm not quite sure how you get from a poor chap killing himself to the possibility of Bush being killed...