Page 1 of 3
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:51 pm
by GORDON
From here.
Fuckers are crying louder than all of my sisters' kids put together.
Don't let the screen door smack you in your ass on the way out, eh?
If anyone needs directions, let me know. I'd be glad to help.
Edited By GORDON on 1101941310
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:21 pm
by TheCatt
I must not read the right blogs or whatnot.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:49 pm
by GORDON
abcnews.com
Somewhat more predictably, Dan Savage.
Got bombarded with those one after another right before I made my post... and this is a week later.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:26 pm
by thibodeaux
I wish gay people would get over themselves already. It ain't about gay marriage.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:43 pm
by TheCatt
thibodeaux wrote:I wish gay people would get over themselves already. It ain't about gay marriage.
So, what is it about?
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:44 pm
by TheCatt
Taht abcnews link just went back here.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:47 pm
by TheCatt
Well, Dan only gets a column a week, so that's his first since the election.
And gay people are dramatic 
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:57 pm
by thibodeaux
TheCatt wrote:thibodeaux wrote:I wish gay people would get over themselves already. It ain't about gay marriage.
So, what is it about?
Lots of things. The idea that everything has a single root cause, while attractive, is usually a serious over-simplification. Come on---nuance, remember?
I can only truly speak for myself, of course. I voted for Bush, and I don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage either way. I have no idea why anybody else voted for who they did, and neither does anybody else. So this notion that Bush won because of all these gay-hatin' Jesus freaks really irks me. What happened to not stereotyping people?
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:11 am
by TheCatt
11 ballot initiatives? I don't think the stereotype is "only gay hatin jesus freaks voted for Bush" I think it's "gay hatin jesus freaks" tipped the election to Bush.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:18 am
by thibodeaux
Only if you think that's what made Ohio go for Bush. I sort of suspect he would have taken Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah anyway.
I guess there just aren't enough Jesus Freaks in Michigan and Oregon for this ploy to work. Note to Republicans in 2008: be sure to spool up the Jesus Freak Relocation Program---there's a couple of Blue States ripe for the taking! Maybe bring out an anti-homo ballot initiative in Wisconsin, too.
But if I'm wrong about the stereotype, how do you explain pictures like the one here?
Edited By thibodeaux on 1100183653
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:39 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:Taht abcnews link just went back here.
Egads.
This one.
http://search.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=235904&page=1
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:06 pm
by Leisher
Why don't the whiners just move to the blue states? Besides federal influence, it should be a liberal utopia there.
Simple Facts:
-The president really doesn't have as much power as the hype on the office suggests.
-Kerry wouldn't have gotten shit done with an all Republican Congress.
-This election was NOT a large liberal voice being silenced. It was a large anti-Bush voice being silenced. If it had come down to liberal vs. conservative then the numbers would have been the same as the gay marriage defeats.
-Without impressionable college kids, liberals would consist of Hollywood, gays, and hippies. Minorities aren't included in that list because they don't vote liberal, they vote democrat. Big difference. Unions vote Democrat too, and I'm pretty sure Bubba the welder wasn't voting Kerry so he's pass gay rights bills.
-If you don't like politics in the U.S., wait a few years and change it.
-Gay people: If the voters were against it, what did you expect Kerry to do?
I do find it hilarious to hear the left mock "Jesusland" saying Bush scared them into voting for him. What exactly was the left doing during the entire election? Constant scare tactics.
Sure the right pushed the war and terrorism as issues, but the left didn't? Stop lying. Wake up and smell your own bullshit.
What exactly are all these "move to Canada" claims besides scare tactics and attention grabbing?
When Clinton won the presidency the first of second time, did the conservatives or republicans do this shit? Did they threaten to move to Canada? Did they run websites talking to the world about how sorry they were? (Before you give me some horseshit about Bush being dangerous, Clinton bombed a hospital to try and divert attention from the fact that he got head from a fat girl.)
If you don't like our election process, leave. I supported Clinton after the election in which I didn't vote for him. In fact, he was my commander-in-chief while I was in the service. He could have easily sent me to my death and I would have gone despite his hatred of the military.
So suck it up and support your, yes YOUR, president.
If he fucks up, then laugh it up. However, if he does well...hell, if the country is still standing after 4 years I expect to see full apologies.
(Sorry, I vented a bit.)
Edited By Leisher on 1100192826
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:15 pm
by TPRJones
The 11 ballot initiatives passed by margins in the 60%-80% range, while bush only won by a 2% margin. This means one of two things: either a statistically significant percentage of Kerry supporters decided to skip voting on the initiatives altogether while most Bush supporters did take the time to vote for them, or a statistically significant portion of Kerry supporters voted for the initiatives ... or a combination of both.
I find that intriguing. I'll need to study the numbers to figure out which it is.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:42 pm
by TPRJones
omg ... this is getting rediculious
What a bunch of worthless pussies.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:36 pm
by GORDON
"post-election selection trauma."
What does "selection" have to do with anything?
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:47 pm
by Alhazad
you can select to be a whiny pussy or just grin and bear it like a normal person
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:58 pm
by GORDON
Maybe it's natural selection and nature is selecting these people to get depressed, curl up, and die before they can reproduce any more.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:38 pm
by TheCatt
thibodeaux wrote:Only if you think that's what made Ohio go for Bush. I sort of suspect he would have taken Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah anyway.
But if I'm wrong about the stereotype, how do you explain pictures like the one here?
1) Yes, that's my belief, Ohio tipped to Bush cuz of gay marriage intiative, etc.
2) It's called humour.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:44 pm
by GORDON
Late the night of the election, when everyone knew Ohio was going to Bush but nobody would admit it, I saw some Democrat talking head say something to the effect of, "We lost this election because of the abortion issue. It's all about abortion this time."
Took me by surprise. I've talked to a lot of people in the last year about who they're voting for, and not a single person has said anything about "abortion" or "gay marriage."
Granted, I don't know and haven't met anyone who consider themselves the "religious right," either.
IN FACT.... the two peeps that I know for certain go to church every week both voted for Kerry.
Edited By GORDON on 1100209463
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:52 pm
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:Took me by surprise. I've talked to a lot of people in the last year about who they're voting for, and not a single person has said anything about "abortion" or "gay marriage."
I should qualify this a bit: Nobody who was voting for Bush cited abortion or gay marriage as the reason.
Obviously I know peeps who voted against Bush for that reason.