Thursday, October 19, 2006

Response to "The President is Always Right"

The other day, my blog entry here was a video that I made called, "Is the President Always Right?" It has been viewed by over 4,000 people so far on YouTube, and has generated quite a few comments, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Most of the comments have been supportive, and in agreement with the point of the video. Then there are a handful of the predictable haters ... lots of implications about my sexuality, or comparisons to certain parts of the female anatomy, but very little real debate. I appreciate the supporters, and ignore the haters who just like to see their names on the page.

But what really disturbed me, however, was a comment made by a user called goldrushnumber1:
i think bush is a good guy, just not the person i want leading my country, but i think the reason bush got re elected is because kerry wanted gay marrige and bush is aginst it, and i would rather the country get blown up with 1000 nukeular bombs than to have my children raised thinking homosexuality is OK... (my opinion, sorry if this offends anyone)
What gets me is that goldrushnumber1 actually sounds like a reasonable guy. He doesn't curse, or make aspersions about my motivations, sanity, or lifestyle. He recognizes that his opinion is no better or more valid than mine, and apologizes for any offense. Only the spelling gives him away as not being very bright.

The spelling, and that other thing ... He'd prefer Armageddon to civil rights for homosexuals. 1,000 "nukeular" [sic] bombs would pretty much destroy this nation. The bombs we'd release in return (in whatever little time we had to do it in) would destroy a couple more nations. The radioactive clouds all these explosions would send around the globe would take out a few more. Then chaos, starvation, etc., until the end of days. So, yes, Armageddon.

Is goldrushnumber1 such a true believer that he thinks this could be a good thing? Hastening the Rapture by selecting a leader who is likely to bring about Armageddon?

I really don't want to say anything nasty about goldrushnumber1 as a person. As outrageous as I find his views, I appreciate that he was polite in expressing them, and I want to return that courtesy. I'm just trying to understand the thought process.

Select one:
A) Global nuclear war.
B) Respecting other people's private lives.

Which would you choose?

Click here to take my Blog Satisfaction Survey - Only 9 questions!

Tags: , , , , , ,


  1. hi ken,
    "very little real debate"-true, however, no room for "real debate" in the comments. this may be for the best over at youtube :(

    "goldrushnumber1 sounds like a reasonable guy" wha?! tell me you're kidding! why, because he was "polite"? think this statement through again, please. you're too smart to be thinking like this.
    warmest regards,

  2. Okay, yes, I was trying hard to be polite. Goldrushnumber1's position on on prefering Armegeddon to civil rights is anything but reasonable.

    But it was his very politeness about being unreasonable that got my attention. The idiots calling a cunt and a bitch and a faggot were easy to ignore.

    That he was "nice" about stating his position, without resorting to juvenile insults, is what passed for a reasonable way of presenting his very unreasonable position.

    This is what intrigued me about his comment when I first read it, and still does now.

    Thanks for coming by the blog and commenting!


Twitter Feed