i kiss girlz's picture

I'm sorry, I have to get it out of my system. Again.

KERRY IS FUCKING INSANE!! OK well not insane but god damn ... you people would let him run your country?! You would trust him with your lives?! I wouldn''t trust him with shit! Just because of the gay marriage, you're willing to put Kerry in office??? Haven't you heard of patience?! I'm just as much of a flaming bisexual as the next, but Jesus!

And for the people who talk about the war in Iraq, if you put Kerry in ofice, he would take the troops out. He would be saying that everything our soldiers did, didn't mean shit. That the men and women who died over there didn't mean shit. Yes, he may have kept some people from dying if he had done that, but in the long run, we all would have gotten bombed and killed because he wouldn't have stood up for the U.S. He would have been saying that it was OK that they attacked us. He would have been saying it was OK for the terrorists.

I don't know about all of you, but that makes me want to scream. And from what I see on here, most of you would have voted for Kerry just because of the gay marriage. I'm sorry, but that's shortsighted. Very shortsighted. I'll stop before I offend/piss off any more people and get myself killed in the night.

Rock on, President.


FallenMoon's picture

I was just for Kerry because of my father.

My father is in Iraq and I was hoping with Kerry as president he would get my father and all the other troops out safe. I'm just worried something is going to happen to him.

"You haven't come to terms what it means to be a lesbian." -Cece Goddard from Keeping You a Secret

Barralai's picture


Personally, Fuck Bush.
Even when I did know I was bi, I still didnt support bush, he is a lieing cheating, stealing, red-neck, loser, who makes the country look like a bunch of stupid idiots. And ppl like you dont help ;P

fkudotcom6's picture

I want Kerry not because of j

I want Kerry not because of just gay marraige. I am 90% pro-choice as is Kerry. I believe in choice, and i am 100% anti-war, anti-fighting, therefore, i am 95% pro-Kerry, 95% anti-bush :D

'Oh my love, please don't cry, i'll wash my bloody hands and we'll start a new life. I dont know much at all, i dont know wrong from right, all i know is that i love you tonight!'

adrian's picture

i supported kerry because he wasn't bush

bush has shown himself to be a criminal , lying warmongering imbecile .. who has turned your taxes into an unjust holy war machine.

how do you feel that youre taxes are being spent to kill innocent women and children under the pretense of weapons of mass destruction THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM EVER.

bush is a [quote]mass murdering fuck head[unquote].

Also, he is a tool of the religious right, and he is throwing the country into dogma and poverty.

And then there's stuff like his ban on stemcell research, and his anti-abortion / anti-gay stances.

Putting the HEAD back into Hedonism

i kiss girlz's picture


Reason we never found any WMD is because we spent way too fucking long talking about how we were going to go in and get them and they were spirited away. Stupid mistake on Bush's part.

*If something "goes without saying," why do people still say it?*

f4ever's picture


I'm generally not one to argue or anything, but I just had to point this out as almost nobody ever mentions this anymore.
I walk a thin line here, not knowing which of the two presidential prospects to have supported, 'cuz I disliked both of them.

It really wasn't Bush's fault for going into Iraq. Chalabi, some rich dude that got his money from bank fraud in Jordan, had been trying to convince Clinton since around '94 that Saddam had WMDs. After Bush became president, he was a little more open to Chalabi's intel, but was still reserved about the validity of the info because both the FBI and the CIA discredited the info. After 9/11 however, Bush's administration convinced him that since the CIA and FBI did not have good enough intel to prevent the attack (here's where it's a little shady as apparently people in the bush admin knew that the attacks were coming, they just didn't know when), that neither agency was trustworthy and that therefore Chalabi must be correct.

On the other hand, I don't see quite exactly why we're still in Iraq other than to save face. If we withdraw from Iraq, we will be looked at as cowards and the "terrorists" will see that God is truely on their side and that they have just defeated the most powerful country. This would then be interpreted as a sign that the idea of a Jihad was correct and that now that the war has been won on their front, they will bring the battle to our front.
Unfortunately, if we stay in Iraq; positive foreign opinion of our country will continue to drop, and we will lose all credibility. More people will join the terrorist organizations because they are seeing their families being killed.

The one major thing about Bush's theory that really ticks me off is that he sees the people of Iraq incorrectly. In a somewhat tribal area like the Middle East, family ties are the most important thing after God. If these religeous people can grab a few phrases from the Quran and interpret as if it applies to their current situation, and if their brother gets killed by a foreigner, the entire family has no choice but to take revenge. It's an honor system that doesn't quite work in the U.S. as we're so diverse and we don't exactly have the same level of family bonding as they do.

...Incase anyone forgot, Bush did bring up that he wants to attack Iran. I belive that after 9/11 it was Bush's administration's plan to take Afghanistan, then Iraq within the first couple of months. Then we'd launch a pincer attack on Iran and therefore end up converting half of the middle-east into pro-americans within 3-4 months.

Now I'm going out on a limb here by tying The previous paragraph to the idea that it was the backing of the evangelicals that convinced Bush to follow through with this plan. If Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan is eliminated, Palestinians have little to no support in their struggle to regain their country (sorry, I'm extremely partial on this subject as I believe that the country belongs to the Palestinians and that they are simply fighting to throw off the invaders that came in 50 years ago). This leads up the interpretation by evangelicals that once Israel becomes its own country again, the anti-christ will come and will bring world peace for X number of years (I don't quite remember the number of years).

Sorry for rambling on and on and filling up your minds with useless clutter. My international relations teacher is of the belief that we shouldn't just give a one or two sentance explanation to the troubles in the Middle East as they've been going on for millenia.

If you're looking for someone to blame for the whole mixup in the M.E. blame the people that purposefully split up the M.E. after WWI to insure that chaos will always reign there.

NovaCat's picture

Maybe some research would help . . .

No, I'm quite sure that I would have voted for Kerry for many other reasons other than gay marriage. And the fact that he claimed that he was opposed to gay marriage kind of shuts down the whole argument. I would have voted for John Kerry because I believe that he would have done a better job at EVERYTHING than George Bush has done. It's my opinion. I agree with maybe 1% of what George Bush does, while I agree with about 90% of what Kerry said he would have done. I have no idea what John Kerry would have actually done had he been in office. If I said I did, I would be lying and pretending JUST LIKE EVERYONE WHO GOES ON AND ON ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF GORE HAD BEEN ELECTED. No one can possibly know what would have happened, as he was not elected. I like to think that the USA would not be in as deep shit as it is now, but that's just me. It could've been worse off, it could've been better. We won't know. I did not assume when George Bush was elected in 2000 that the country was on it's way to hell, as I knew absolutely nothing about George Bush except his relation to a former president.

Maybe next time you vent on something like this, you should keep it non-accusatory until you come up with real evidence beyond quoting a party line. It really helps an argument if you have actual facts to back it up or at least an informed opinion. It is best not to speak if you cannot hold your ground with anything valid. I have heard some very good arguments for Bush on this website, and while I don't agree with them, at least they are well thought out and not simply a reactionary statement to an opposing viewpoint. From your post, I cannot see why you like George Bush other than the fact that you think that if George Bush were not president we would all be dead, which is possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. Not only do you have no proof of that statement, but furthermore, it is completely a completely unrealistic assumption. I would encourage you to be a little more informed. Whether you end up still supporting President Bush is not the issue, it's whether you can make an intelligent statement about your opinion.

Janescmane's picture

What the F%&*

Don't mean to sound rude but WHAT THE f$^% are you talking about!!!!

Do you even know anything about politics or polices or are you just spouting brainless psychobabble that you've heard others morons in this country saying. First of all:

Kerry isn't for gay marriage, he's stated that he's FOR civil unions but against marriage. Second your convoluted reasoning where the way is concerned leads me to think that you, like the rest of this country seem virtually incapable of distinguishing between the way on terror and the way in IRAQ. When the F%^& has IRAQ ever tried to bomb us??? Tell me PLEASE. Terriorism has nothing to do with why we invaded IRAQ, get your facts straight before you make such inflamatory statements about things that you obviously know shit about.

Kerry would defend us from TERRIORIST and attacks from BIN LADIN, who is the real criminal here and who we should be going after. TEll me that last time that Sadam Hussein was a threat to the US or to the rest of the world for that matter. I suggest that you do some investigating, reading and research about things before you start spouting this crap.

Sorry to be harsh but it's opinions like this that has us stuck with the imbecile and wanna be DICTATOR; your president BUSH!!

Wake up and see things for what they are, don't be fooled by stupid labels and cowardly attacks by a bias press and polluted system. Think, find out the truth and make educated opinions.

i kiss girlz's picture


I was venting. Is there something wrong with me doing that? I didn't ask you to read it. I never said I was arguing with anyone. In fact, I stated I was simply getting out of my system. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone.

*If something "goes without saying," why do people still say it?*

supergray's picture

el presidente

Let me just ask some questions, okay?

We got into the war on Iraq based on lies. (There were no WMDs, and no connection to Bin Laden or the world trade center bombing. These, you may recall were the reasons we--or Bush, rather--gave for going to war in Iraq.)

So, the questions:

1. How does prolonging a war based on lies give meaning to the soldiers deaths?

2. Do you think Bush places value on their lives/sacrifices, given that he sent them to this war (for reason that turned out to be false)? More than Kerry would, given that Kerry's been to war and in combat?

2. You said: "He would be saying that everything our soldiers did, didn't mean shit." Our soldiers supposedly went there to Get rid of WMDs and because Iraq was a "Threat to America." Considering niether of these were true, what does "everything our soldiers did" mean?

--I'd also like to take this oppurtunity to point out that everything we think about Iraqis, Iraqis probably think about us.
Us: Iraqis are terrorists and their religion is Evil
Iraqis: Americans are occupiers/terrorists and their religion is Evil

Everything we say about ourselves, they probably say about themselves:
Us: God is on our side
Them: God is on our side
Us: We are brave and fighting for the american way
Them: We are brave and fighting for our freedom and way of life
Please consider this when replying to:

3. When you say, "That the men and women who died over there didn't mean shit." is 'men and women' secret code for "Americans"? And do you think the non-americans who are dying there at a ratio of 15 Iraqis (combatant and civilian) to every 1 American, (almost entirely combatant) mean anything?

4."Yes, he may have kept some people from dying if he had done that," Again, does "people" mean "American"? because it would save hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis, adults, children, and old people from death and disfigurement by injury.

5. but in the long run, we all would have gotten bombed and killed because he wouldn't have stood up for the U.S. Considering there were no weapons, and Iraq had absolutely no designs on us, how do you figure?

6. He would have been saying that it was OK that they attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us. There was only one, ONE, Iraqi involved with the planning of this. And he wasn't very high up in the Al Qaeda power structure. It's ridiculous to take a whole country to task for that.If Bush is going to defend us, why didn't he raise the issues of Saudi Arabia and Iran's involvement with Al Qaeda?

7. He would have been saying it was OK for the terrorists. Other countries--and not just Middle Eastern ones--see us as terrorists. They hate our guts because we do whatever the heck we want to them whenever the heck we want. (Not, by the way, because our SUVs are big and shiny. Oh, and because we kill their loved ones by the score.) Do you think it's okay for us to attack them and level their cities without provocation (they haven't attacked us)? If not, how could we possibly stay in this war? If so, why?

And in case you really don't care one way or the other about non-Americans:

8. Don't our troops deserve better? If they mean so much, why not bring them home from this stupid, meaningless war?

9. Your post seems to boil down to (and correct me if I'm wrong) "If we leave Iraq as Kerry would do, it sends terrorists the message that it's okay to attack us." This is pretty much what a good deal of Bush's re-election propaganda claimed. Does that bother you at all, considering propaganda is like a commercial--sort of true, but mostly not? Never trust propaganda. Read, research.

Also, This seems to me a leap of logic. I've heard it before, though, but I still can't connect the dots. We made a mistake. How does righting it make terrorists attack us? Coincedetally--not to be snide, just as a matter of curiousity--do you subscribe to the "America: love it or leave it" school of thought"?

I realise this became kind of long. Okay, really long. I apologise. The whole war topic's kind of raw with me, but I'm not really offended, nor would I "kill you in the night." It's a dangerous game to blindly follow anything, or blindly condemn it. We would all have loved gay marriage, but it's hardly the only issue at hand or the only one the rest of us considered when forming our opinions. Based on the facts of Bush's past 'reverence of life', I wouldn't trust him with mine, or anyones. He'd use it for ammo.

Anonymous's picture

To sugargray's comment:Th

To sugargray's comment:

Thought I don't completely understand or accept that we are still in Iraq, I do COMPLETELY agree with going over there in the first place. After the war, Iraq signed an agreement saying that they would get rid of any nuclear weapons they had. Then Saddam said something that may have been hinting that they DID have nuclear weapons. Which automatically gave us the right to go over there and find out if they did or not!!!

Do people pay attention to people running for office? At all? Please!!! If anyone against Bush had ACTUALLY payed attention, they would have noticed that KERRY KEEPS CHANGING HIS MIND! ABOUT EVERYTHING! In every single one of the debates, the said something and then when Bush said something about it, he changed his mind and said something that completely contradicted what he had said before. And also, he said that he was all for supporting our troops and sending them armor. Then he voted AGAINST getting them armor!!!!! Does anyone pay attention to what the DOES as well as what he says? He doesn't know anything and if he had been elected, it wouldn't matter if he had let gays have marriage rights because WE WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN KILLED BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE WAR!

Sorry I've turned this into a rant, but come on people! And thank you to 'i kiss girlz'. FINALLY someone agrees with me!!

** IMRU? **

supergray's picture

the all mighty

I'm sorry RainOnMe, but the US never had the right to go into Iraq, to look for weapons or otherwise. I believe that was the UN's prerogative. Same difference, huh? It seems so, but still, one would like to think formalities like that could be observed.

You might remember the UN led task force we pressured them to send in found nothing. Searched and searched and found nothing. So, on the day before the official report was going to be presented, Bush attacked Iraq. Why couldn't he wait the extra day, considering he'd already demanded a copy of the report and knew there were no weapons?

The UN determined there were no UMDs, and never sanctioned any sort of war--sorry, "police action". We do what we want, like I said previously, when we want, and squirm out of it on semantics, or just lie. Or, proclaim we're proud to be Americans, God Bless Us, We're so wonderful we can barely stand ourselves, and pat each other on the back, declare we have all sorts of rights, and ignore Global Law.

We signed UN membership agreements. By your logic, every other member of the UN should have the right to come over here and trounce us for breaking those. Like not invading other people without UN sanction. Remember someone who declared we'd do it with or without the UN? I don't hear a whole lot of the people citing Saddams's breach of agreement wondering why we aren't held to things we sign.

So, I'm not going to argue about the candidates. It's a moot point, and we have the Baby Bush for another four years, no matter what any of us believe, think, or know about either of them. I do take some offense at the suggestion that we're all only thinking about getting hitched. Like I said, it would have been nice, but theres other issues. And this being a LGBT sort of site, god forbid our rants and/or the opinions we express here center on that topic. Some of us only post LGBT related things here and save the rest for other journals/blogs/boards/places. That doesn't mean we don't consider other issues.

What really kills me is the holier-than-thou attitude I hear so much in the Iraq debate. As if, by virtue of having been born on this continent, we have the right to Smush anyone who doesn't like us/might someday try to Smush us.

For info, look what other coutries have to say on things. England and Australia not only publish in english, but don't have a reason to push for either party. (Unlike US media, which is almost always pushing for one side or the other.)

I'm really sorry 'i kiss girlz', I'm filling your replies page. And this time I can't proof for tipos, because my comps shutting down randomly. Apologies.

NovaCat's picture

I would say John Kerry knows

I would say John Kerry knows as little about how the war in Iraq is going as George Bush himself does. I find it much more discomforting to have a president who constantly claims everything is going fine in Iraq contrary to ALL EVIDENCE than a presidential candidate who changes his mind. Frankly, one of the greatest presidents of all time, Franklin Roosevelt, would probably be labeled a flip-flopper if he were running today. In efforts to jumpstart the American economy, FDR tried all manner of things, and when something didn't work, he tried the opposite thing. Obviously, this is a very different scenario, but seriously, Herbert Hoover had tried ONLY ONE STRATEGY to get out of the depression, and, when it didn't work, he kept doing it. He stayed the course, and the American economy became even more fucked up than before.

And I find it very aggravating that people assume that with George Bush as president, the USA suddenly magically has a lower chance of being attacked. Terrorists were not waiting for John Kerry to be elected to strike. They didn't go "Oh darn, now that Bush is president again, we'll have to hold off our attacks." You have no idea what terrorists are thinking. How do you know they weren't waiting for Bush to be elected? How do you know they didn't even care about who would become president? I'm sure September 11th would have happened whether Bush or Gore had been president in 2001. Saying that we would be in more danger had John Kerry been elected president is stupid and unfounded. It's a baseless prediction that you can't test out because John Kerry isn't president. George Bush is. Terrorists are not going "Oh no, it's George Bush! He's tough on terrorism! We'd better not do anything!", they're going "America is oppressive and evil!" There are still going to be roadside bombings and suicide bombers and RPGs hitting vehicles. There is no way you can legitimately say that George Bush being president diminishes those occurrences, or, had John Kerry been elected, that those occurrences would increase. You have no evidence of your claim. It's an opinion with no grounds.

TeeAhr1's picture

Have some decency.

Enough. To poke at people like that two days after the most emotional election we'll probably ever see is just tasteless. We're supposed to be friends here. Don't pick fights.
Please take to heart that I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm not going to discuss this right now because it wouldn't be a mentally healthy thing for me to do. Later, if you like, we can argue some more, I promise. But please, if I may take the liberty of speaking for other people. Not right now, not tonight.


Rikki's picture

Other Issues

Sometimes we might forget this, but there are other gay rights besides gay marriage. Like protection from discrimination in the
workplace. Kerry supported ENDA. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Check it. Also check out, inclusion in the military, housing, right to adopt, etc., etc. Then, you will see the difference.

Fabian Anderson-Smith's picture



My dear Americans, I will flavour whatever I'm about to say by stating upfront that I loathe, loathe, your president. He said on the South African news the other day:

'The enemy does not sleep and neither do we. They do not stop thinking of ways to harm this country, and neither do we'.

Please, if you haven't yet go to, it is wicked comic and pretty damn accurate about Bush/the Religious Right.

Now, to get to the point: I am South African, and my country is probably quite unique in having a considerable pro-Bush lobby. That is because we also have a Heartland farming district and glitzy new churches in Johannesburg and the Cape. But the only thing that can get 12 000 of my notoriously fractious countrymen out on Queen Elizabeth Square in protest is Bush.

If he stopped F*ing attacking everyone, and making enemies like a reverse Midas on speed everywhere he F*ing went, then maybe he wouldn't have created the F*ing situation (i.e., a world decidedly luke-warm about the Land of the Free) that he claims only he can now save you from!

I dunno too much about American politics but I know the Democratic and Republican platforms roughly, and wish to God that the Christian Right, something we outside of the US and especially in Europe and 'Greater Europe' (culturally speaking) fear and don't understand, would be smited from the earth. Really I do, and go to and see why.

Herewith a bit from Time Europe:

'Oh, merde!'"

In many languages, that was Europe's reaction to George W. Bush's victory: not quite shock and awe, perhaps, but fury, incomprehension and frustration, with muted cheers coming from only a few pro-Bush corners. If the result left America bitterly divided, it left Europe remarkably united — wondering why Americans would want another four years of a man whose words and deeds have alienated most of the U.S.'s allies.

No American election in living memory has riveted Europeans the way this one has, and that intense focus wasn't merely driven by hatred for Bush (though there is, of course, plenty of that to go around). Instead, Europe looked to this election to settle a deeper question: whether America itself had become an alien planet, one with values and perceptions so different from Europe's that the great postwar Atlantic alliance might never be repaired. By re-electing the President, even by such a slim margin, America has provided what many Europeans will take as definitive proof that the U.S. really is an incomprehensible place — and that the chasms and fights of the past several years are likely to continue. The President's win "erodes the view that one must distinguish between the disliked Bush Administration and the American society we've always loved," says André Kaspi, director of the Sorbonne's North American History Center.

To Europe, that suggests that the mutual disdain will continue, and that Europe and the U.S. are bound to drift further apart, even if their size and importance condemn them to keep doing business together. "There is in fact a certain degree of astonishment," says Gernot Erler, foreign-policy spokesman for Germany's ruling Social Democrats. "If a German Chancellor were to take the country to war on reasons that turned out to be wrong, he would have no chance of being re-elected." Says David Mepham, head of the international program at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London: "I think I'm going to be depressed for the next four years. Bush is going to feel like he has a mandate to do whatever he wants."

Now may God, and Dubya, have mercy on us all.

Jazzer's picture

The gay Republican rears her horrid face again....

The current National Debt: $7 trillion and counting

The cost of war in Iraq: $143 billion and counting

The amount of money Oregon needed to keep from cutting last year's school year by several WEEKS: $200 million

Average number of American soliders killed everyday: 2

Congressional estimate of how much this war will cost beyond 2004: $4 billion/month

Total number of soldiers killed so far: 1,123

Getting the chance to go to a 20-year-old soldier's funeral: priceless

Get half a brain, girl. Quit hanging around Republicans; it's bad for the health of America.


Some people's kids...I tell ya!

solarfae's picture

oh dear

there are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for bush (if you happen to feel that way) please do not use stupid excuses like "kerry will let terrorists do whatever they please" to justify re-electing bush.

altho personally, it repulses me to even make the statement that there are "legitimate reasons" to vote for bush. anyone who fucks with the constitution as much as him is not presidential material in my book. (see: patriot acts, protection of equal rights, seperation of church and state)

~ solarfae

adrian's picture


America is turning into a police state, and noone is paying attention.

You know how you boil a frog ?

You don't just dump him into boiling water, as he will jump out.

You put him in the water and slowly heat it up so he doesnt notice the change.

The american political system has run it's rails. imo.

Sure you have a democracy , but the two parties are practically indistinguishable when you get down to it. You desperately need a real third (and maybe even a forth) party, with a real chance of winning.

Even communists countries have had elections. You could vote for this communist, or that communist.

Putting the HEAD back into Hedonism