Kerry is an open-toed shoe….

by alphamonkey on October 8, 2004 · 27 comments

in Politics

imageA couple of quotes I found… both by John Kerry.

“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”—John Kerry, 11/20/03

“The satisfaction we take in (Saddam’s) downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.”—John Kerry, 9/20/04

All of this and he still won’t let queer folks get hitched.

I think all liberals are of small mind. Can someone please explain to me why we need big government? Are liberals just no-brained pussies that can’t make up their own mind? They need to have structure and uniform taxes to see that thier lives are lead properly? I think so… and so did Johnny Cash.

I hope he wins… I really do… You guys will love me as your communist dictator. I will rule you bitches.

  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • The Good Reverend

    A couple of Transbuddha posts I found, both by you –

    1. TV killed the probation officer… Cocaine ruined my bitch…

    2. TV killed the probation officer. Cocaine rained a star.

    Which is it, Harvester?  Is cocaine a stand-up drug, raining stars?  Or some evil menace ruining your bitches?  Do you approve of cocaine, or “wrong place, wrong drug, wrong time”?

    Even in your insanity, you are a fucking flip-flopper.  And a hypocrit.

  • fatboypartridge

    generalities suck, man.

    liberals this.

    conservatives that.

    republicans, democrats, homosexuals, apes, retards, atheists, women, blah, blah blah.

    stop labeling yourselves, dammit.

    stick with the name your parents gave you and let your actions turn that name into a definition.

  • fatboypartridge

    hey, screw you, man.

    i can be as square as i want.

    i LIKE corners.

  • Shadow Stalker

    Hey, that hippie up front is hot.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Thanks for that point, V. I always wonder why it is that people don’t believe that government has an obligation to better the lives of it’s citizens. It seems such a basic principal to me.

    I’m also curious why people still believe that free-market economies will somehow better the people’s lives. It’s just communism facing the other direction and it still relies on a basic fundamental human goodness that simply isn’t there.

  • Oraxis

    Kerry’s blurry mug looks like it’s making a sort of Gomer Pile “need ta change yer oal?” expression.  I know it’s becuase he’s squinting at the sun, but it’s still mildly humerous.

    (I have nothing politically insightful to say, I just wanted to dumb things down a bit.)

  • The Good Reverend

    hehe now that you mention it, he does look a bit stupid in that pic

  • Davion

    a bit stupid?  Dude that is Gomer Pile!

  • .alphamonkey.

    I’m not certain there’s any hot-blooded heterosexual man that would turn down a dance with Barbarella.

  • fatboypartridge


    you can blast me with your disintegrator ray ANY day, baby.

  • Thundarr

    Since Harvestor has raised the point in multiple posts, I thought I’d reply.  Here’s the problem I have with governmental crackdown on gay marriage.  The Separation Between Church And State!!!!  Let me repeat that for Harvestor, THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!

    1. Marriage is a religious institution

    2. The government has no control over religious institutions, for instance it can’t even tax the fuckers

    3. If there is a church in a city that is willing to marry two gay men or gay women what right does the state have to stop a religious ceremony.

    4. How can a “God-appointed” President like Bush try to stop a priest, minister, rabbi, or whatever the crazy-fuck Buddhists like Alphamonkey uses, from performing the duty given to them by a higher power?

    4. Harvestor’s and idiot

  • Davion

    That would be “Harvestor’s a idiot”

  • The Good Reverend

    hahaha actually, it would be “Harvestor’s an idiot.” Three’s and charm…I mean “three’s an charm”.. wait.. fuck.

  • Oraxis

    I think you mean “third time’s a charm”.  You guys have such bad grammor…

  • Davion


  • Oraxis

    However much I would like to agree with you, Thundarr, the “separation of church and state” is not the “separation of God and state”…as many GOP’s are quick to point out.  God is all over in the government.  He’s on the money, He’s in the oaths, He’s in the long version of the national anthem, He’s in the pledge of allegiance (which is somehow a much bigger deal than the other stuff), He’s everywhere!  The government doesn’t make religions institutions untaxable because they’re out if it’s control, they don’t tax churches because that’s Uncle Sam’s way of tithing.  Of course, then they’ve got to apply the same tax laws to other religions than christianity, but that’s just to be fair.  The separation of church and state applies only to the specific organizations.  The people themselves can and do apply the rules of religion to the laws of the country all the time.  They do it because they think that the rules of religion are akin to the constitution – they’re fundamentally sacred and should be aspired to with the same vigor.  They have the right to say “I do not support gay marriage because it is against God’s law”, but that doesn’t make it right.

    I support gay marriage, and I don’t believe that the laws of christianity should be enforced as if they were the laws of our country.  If it were up to me, “God” would be completely stripped from every part of the government.  The individuals themselves should have the right to believe in whatever they want to, and they should have the right to support their personal beliefs through legislation, but they should NOT have the right to enact legislation based entirely on the rules of religion, with no further justification.  Sure, I’ve heard it all before.  “The family unit consists of a mommy, a daddy, and 2.5 children…and NEVER two mommies or two daddies!  Gay marriage undermines that fundamental institution and threatens the well being of our society…nay the well being of the very fabric of space-time!”…yet somehow the concept of single parents is always swept under the carpet.  Should the constition make it illegal to raise children without two parents?  What about straight couples that don’t ever want to have children?  Should they be allowed to get married?  That argument just doesn’t work.  It all boils down to the fact that it creeps them out and their Bible says that men shouldn’t “lay with” other men.  Of course, the punishment that The Bible suggests for such lewd behavior is a good ol’ fashioned public stoning…so why not put that into effect while we’re at it?

    Man has the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.  Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

    My name is Oraxis, and I approved this message.

  • Shadow Stalker

    The pledge of allegiance is a bigger deal because we don’t make kids in school read dollar bills aloud every morning.  The point that the guy was making was that even though his daughter didn’t have to say “under god,” she was still being discriminated against because she had to choose whether to go along with everyone else, or go with her religious choice and become an outsider.  As a kid who was raised agnostic, I can sympathize with his reasoning, but I’m not sure I agree with his lawsuit.  Choosing to be non-Christian in America is choosing to be in a minority, and part of me thinks she should learn early that there is nothing wrong with that.

    Also, the phrase “under god” wasn’t added until the fifties, so it doesn’t belong in the pledge anyway.  It was added to distinguish us from Communism, so I think, to keep up with the times, it should be changed to “under a valid, non-theocratic government.”

  • fatboypartridge

    it’s about confusion of kinds.

    leviticus says shellfish (specifically, crabs, lobsters, etc) are unclean food because they mess with the order of things… things underwater, swim. Having all these hideous bug-things with legs and spines everywhere crawling all over the place is wrong. things with legs belong on land.

    leviticus says man shouldn’t fuck man, because that messes with the order of things. things with penises, stick themselves into things with vaginas. having two penises in the same place at the same time is wrong.

    Now, hold up there;

    You’re right. banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Government can’t tell rabbis and priests what. But this is a big issue in the CHURCH as well. The GOVERNMENT is only concerned with the tax benefits. They don’t want to recognize a pair of men or a pair of women as man-and-wife, because they would then have to give them tax breaks etc… The government can’t make religious laws, but they can influence them by making it so that no homosexual marriage gets the benefits of a heterosexual marriage.

    and you know what? Forget all you atheists, agnostics, hindus, buddhists, wiccans, whoever-the-hells.

    Marriage is for Christians.

    and maybe Jews.


    Because marriage means a promise BEFORE GOD that a man and a woman (or man and man, or woman and woman, or man and goat) love each other, and are going to stick together, and all that good gooey stuff. Key words: promise before God.

    A christian man and a christian man have more right to that promise (in the purely religious aspect) than an atheist man and a wiccan woman.

    I’m insulted that you’d promise ANYTHING to my God, whom you don’t believe exists.

    By the way.

    YES, this does mean i’m FOR homosexual marriages.

    I’m just, AGAINST homosexual.. uhm.. Sex.



    Boo sodomy!

  • .alphamonkey.

    the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

    Marriage is a legal contract. God ain’t got nothing to do with it.

  • The Good Reverend

    Marriage was around before Judeo-Christianity.  So, how is it now the exclusive right of Judeo-Christians?  In fact, pretty much every aspect of Judeo-Christianity was stolen from other belief systems.  Marriage – stolen.  Noah’s flood – stolen.  Virgin-born messiah – stolen.  Christmas, Easter.. if it’s an important part of the faith, chances are it was appropriated from another religion.

    And I have no problem with that part.  Religions are alive.  When cultures mix, religions will intentionally or unintentionally borrow ideas from their neighbors.  Fine and good – I like change.

    My issue with Christianity and the other exclusivity religions is that they take this idea, make it their own, and then monopolize it.  And now, thousands of years later, they have believers proselytizing that marriage is a “Christian thing”.  Ya been duped!  Bamboozled!  Hoodwinked!  We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock… ahem, sorry.  Will get off soapbox now.

  • Shadow Stalker

    There was no mention of god in my wedding, so fuck you.

    The religious and legal institutions of marriage are two different things, and they should be seperate like they are in most other countries.  In most places, the religious wedding doesn’t mean dick; everyone has to get a “civil union” performed by a government official.

    We don’t follow the laws of Leviticus anymore, so why should we hold so tightly to one verse, which is so often misinterpreted, and ignore the rest?

  • Oraxis

    They might as well just cut and paste the Bible into the constitution while they’re at it.  Just take the whole 18th chapter of Leviticus and make it part of the constitution.  We could then look forward to the banning of:

    – Sex with close relatives (specifically, your mom, step-mom, sister, granddaughter, half-sister, aunt, daughter-in-law, mother/daughter duos)

    – Marriage to your wife’s sister (but only while your wife is still alive)

    – Sex during menstration

    – Sex with other men’s wives

    – The giving of your children as on offering to Molech…?

    – Sex with a man as if you’re doing a woman (though, I prefer not to do my woman up the pooper, so it’s OK if I want to be gay)

    – Sex with animals

    Well, there goes my sex life.

    Seriously, though, I think it’s worth noting that sex with other men’s wives is in the same category as homo-sex.  So…I guess that you could make the argument that cheating should be constitutionally banned.  I mean, there’s no disputing that it’s not good for family values.

  • fatboypartridge

    civil unions i’m fine with. go civilly unite yourselves all you want.

    but the point is, wherever it was adapted from, we took it, we got ourselves a God, and a savior, and regardless of what you may or may not think, i know he exists… whatever, that’s not the issue here.

    the issue here is

    someone else may have started marriage, but we took it.

    now it’s ours.

    and we got the fuggin POPE.

    so back off, fool.

    (don’t mess with the pope. i may not be catholic but.. dude, he’s got a bulletproof golf cart. and that HAT…)

  • .alphamonkey.

    Which I suppose protects him from the threat of scary bats and allows him to continue his never-ending campaign to eradicate the threat of pancakes. Seriously, the dude is insane he’s just that old.

    That’s the point though, FBP.  It’s not ‘our’ god. It’s someone’s narrowly defined version of god. I don’t agree that with SS that this is a christian country. This is a multi-thesistic country in which, BY LAW, no one religious view is to be held up above any other as the standard upon which laws are based.

    Marriage doesn’t belong to the church, and frankly it shouldn’t. It’s a legal contract that allows the government to recognize property and financial rights of a pair of individuals and their offspring. In reality, the church marriage is a civil union and nothing more. So let’s just say you can have your civil unions in the church and we’ll let the government handle the marriages as they should.

  • Shadow Stalker

    When did I say this was a Christian country?  All I said was that non-Christians are in the minority in this country, which is true.  Taken all together we probably aren’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that stores close for Easter, not Passover.

  • Thundarr

    But that’s my point exactly Harvestor, if there are priests all around this country willing to marry man to man and woman to woman what right does the government have to step in and stop such a union?  If an ordained minister, priest, rabbi or buddhist monk is willing to perform such a ceremony and recognize it under God, who are we to stop it?

  • fatboypartridge

    civil unions are performed by the city. (or town or state or whatever government you like, i honestly don’t care) hence “civil.” And there’s a hindu version, sure, but it oughta have a different name. I’m just saying, each form of union that’s different, should be named as such. we called marriage. pick your own name.

    i just don’t like seeing someone refer to a girl as his wife, and thinking “oh, so he’s promised to God that they’ll always love each other” when really he promised it to the mayor.

    such ambiguity irks me.

    this is getting WAY too serious.

    can we go back to the pope-mobile now?

Previous post:

Next post: