HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rocktivity » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

rocktivity

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: New Jersey
Home country: USA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 43,345

Journal Archives

You just proved that my comment makes sense.

Obama is not bullying the bullies. He's just standing up to them. Which is what you should always do with bullies. Obama standing up is the only thing bullies fear.


I was speaking of bullies in general. The last thing bullies want is a fair fight because what they fear is that they don't have what it takes to win. So they "solve" their "problem" by preying upon those who appear to be either too scared or too vulnerable to fight back.

Mitt thought that defeating Obama was simply a matter of damning him with Bush II's sins and reminding everyone that he's not white. His big mistake was not realizing that he has far more vulnerabilities than Obama, who naturally started preying upon them in self-defense. And what is the Romney camp's response? To paraphrase the very title of this thread, "He's fighting back, AND he's winning -- NO FAIR!!!"

Bullying is wrong. Bullying back is not when you have no other line of defense.


rocktivity

IT'S THE TAX RETURNS, STUPID!!!!!

You're making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that McCain did, Mitt!

2008: In appointing Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, John McCain has taken his own trump card off the table. The only real weapon he’s had is Obama’s youth and inexperience --and he’s flip-flopped by choosing a running mate who is even MORE youthful and inexperienced!

2012: By refusing to publish his tax returns (something that presidential candidates have been doing for decades), Mitt Romney has taken his own trump card off the table. The only real weapon he’s had is the support of independent and swing voters disgruntled by Obama's lack of "change" -- and he's thrown it away by refusing to display the most basic level of financial transparency!


rocktivity

[center][/center]

Three knockdowns in a round, and the boxing match is over, right?

Not in the Olympics...And note how he keeps trying to grab his opponents legs...

[center]






[/center]


[center][font size="+2"]AND GUESS WHO WAS DECLARED THE WINNER?[/font]

[/center]

But this story has a happy ending -- the decision was reversed and the referee fired.


rocktivity

Along with my unabashed admiration for roughly sixty minutes, you have a choice of:

[center][/center]

Unless you'd rather have something that's actually useful:

[center][/center]


rocktivity

... Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert.



Near them, on the sand, half sunk, a shattered visage lies
whose frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
tell that its sculptor well those passions read, which yet survive...



And on the pedestal, these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”


Nothing beside remains.
Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
the lone and level sands stretch far away.




-- Percy Bysshe Shelley (1818)


rocktivity

Forget the goverment infrastructure -- what about the SOCIETAL infrastructure?

"I take umbrage at the suggestion that people don't start and build businesses," Maloney said.

That's NOT what Obama suggested. He suggested that people don't start and build businesses BY THEMSELVES, because it requires the direct or indirect help of OTHER people whether they're members of the government or not -- "SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen."


"I started out with 500 bucks..."

Unless you were born holding it in your hands, Mr. Maloney, you DID NOT "start out" with 500 bucks. "Somebody else" either gave you that money, bequeathed it to you, loaned it to you, or allowed you to earn it. If you found it, it's because "somebody else" lost it -- unless you found "somebody else" to steal it from!


"...and worked with my hands..."

"Somebody else" taught you how to work with your hands (either in person or through instructional materials), and "somebody else" invented and produced whatever tools you used.


"...to afford grad school at night."

"Somebody elses" developed your school, hired the teachers, set the curriculum, and decided to accept you. Not to mention the "somebody elses" who taught you how to read and write, and the "somebody elses" who taught THEM how to read and write -- and teach!


"My wife supported me."

By "supporting" you, do you mean that the "somebody else" you're married to gave you moral support, worked with you at building your business, or got herself hired by "somebody else" to provide a supplementary income?


"Started a little body shop and was able to bring together people, one at a time..."

"Somebody else" helped you obtain your body shop's office space, suppliers, subcontractors, equipment, business cards, insurance, advertising, marketing. When business got so good you that could no longer do all the work yourself, you hired "somebody elses" as employees. And of course, let's not forget the most important "somebody elses" of all -- the people who bought your products and services at a large enough volume that you can consider yourself successful.

And never mind the "somebody elses" in the government who organized the building of the roads -- what if "somebody else" HADN'T invented cars in the first place?



rocktivity

DU pout collection moved to Good Reads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101689010

SWITCHED views?

"...Roberts was against the individual mandate when the justices took their initial votes following oral arguments in March. He, along with the other four Republican appointees, believed it was an inappropriate use of Congress’s power to regulate commerce...But the justices did not reach an agreement on how much of the law to strike down...(T)he conservative bloc pushed hard to throw out the entire statute...Roberts...voted to uphold the law...


Roberts did NOT "change his mind" about striking down the law, only the mandate. He upheld the mandate by defining it as a tax -- by CBS's own admission, Roberts was NEVER against the rest of ACA. Apparently leaks to sympathetic media was part of the "conservative bloc's" campaign to get Roberts to "switch views" -- up to and including insinuations about his health by referring to him as "wobbly." Most important, keep in mind that the "sources" for the CBS story could very well be the conservative judges themselves.

Another piece of political mythology is born, like Al Gore's invention of the Internet.


rocktivity

"Does it really matter if an insurance company or the government provides the coverage

if the care is the same?"

The difference with paying the private health industry is that the difference fattens the pockets of its execs, lobbyists, and stockholders while they invent excuses for not covering people (or even paying their employees) so they can turn an even bigger profit.

I don't mind paying for health care, which is why your post does not offend me. However, I do mind paying to further enrich those who do NOT "trickle down" the money via "job creation." I'd rather spend it on preventing EVERYONE from getting sicker than they need to -- and dying sooner than they ought to.


rocktivity

DING DING DING! Spitfire, you're our grand prize winner!

What needed to happen was to make this guy an embarrassment to not only them but to the very concept of professional journalism.

Which Obama also did by refusing to take any additional questions once he was done: the military "if ONE of you has screwed up, then ALL OF YOU have screwed up" principal. Think of all the "evil eyes" Munro must have gotten after that -- even Fox News had to dump on him!


Liberals are at their best when they attack with humor because the Right Wing has no sense of humor.

Click here if you are not familiar with DUer Plaid Adder's superb post on the subject:

...(W)hy is it that so much right-wing political humor just plain doesn't work -- even for its target audience?...I think..(it)...has to do with the basic conflict between comedy and authority...(D)isrespect for authority is the foundation of real comedy...

Mocking the powerful has the positive effect of reminding everyone that though these figures may be powerful, they are not superhuman, and can be resisted/outwitted/defied; it also has the therapeutic effect of validating the anger and pain we feel as we suffer for these people, and reminding us that in fact, it's not us, it's them.

Mocking the vulnerable is just bullying, and all it does is pander to the audience's worst instincts. Right-wing pundits in the main either don't understand this rule, or have a seriously warped understanding of who's vulnerable and who's powerful...

Munro may have thought he was "defying and outwitting the powerful" by condemning the executive order before Obama was done explaining it. But in a textbook example of "seriously warped understanding," Munro ended up "mocking the vulnerable" by accusing Obama of issuing an order that made its recipients "more powerful" than "real" Americans.

This thread has thrived because it strangles Munro on his own rhetoric: you can thrust his arrogant posturing and obnoxious attitude into ANY situation (even the very birth of the universe!) -- and he comes across not as a passionate, professional truth-seeker, but as a self-serving, partisan, overgrown frat brat!


rocktivity
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »