1. They hate it.
2. Their positions are indefensible and they know it.
3. They hate it.
4. If our laughing is the best criticism they can muster, we have already won.
5. They hate it.
...you hate liberals, communists and socialists, but can't really define any of the terms or describe how each is different from the other.
...you have $2.47 to your name, thousands of dollars in debt, don't yet own your house and think Romney's economic "plan" is best for America.
...you are "pro life," as well as pro-war, pro-death penalty and against using tax dollars to take care of unwanted children.
I finally had a thread hidden (yay!), but ironically for a reason other than what I intended. Reading through some of the posts in GD, I was getting the feeling that people were suggesting that we do not vote for some Congressional Democrats based on their position on Medicare. I thought this was ridiculous and it miffed me, so I posted a thread asking that people identify the Congressional Democrats they would like to vote out of office this election, thinking that this would either get people thinking more sanely again (the President's problem now is an obstructionist Congress, which I've noted a number of times). However, it seems that without the sarcasm tag, I was alerted on and quickly judged as violating DU policy. This is ironic, as I intended to call out those who I thought were violating the same policy I was accused of violating. At any rate, I wanted to go on record with this and I'm adding this incident to my journal for future reflection.
If you disagree with this statement, suggest a solution. Given history, we all have a right to be worried and feel nervous about what will happen, but we are currently looking at success and I think that maybe some of us are just having a hard time accepting it. Relax a little. If we all vote and all the votes are counted, the President will win this election.
Don't just say I'm wrong, suggest a solution.
DU has standards for joining and posts that break the agreed-to contract may be hidden by jury. Serious offenders get tombstoned. Outside of this, people respond to our posts when and how they like.
I made a snarky remark to your post because I'm still drinking coffee and not particularly interested in having a lengthy discussion at the moment. Further, I disagree with you that "Obama just doesn't know how to compromise," which I thought, at first glance, was a ridiculous claim and a bullshit right-wing talking point. So, my initial reaction was disrespectful and without much regard to peoples' feelings about their self-images. It was also an honest claim; when I saw your subject line, that is precisely what I initially thought.
Anyway, again, I'm sorry if I hurt yours or anyone else's feelings with my apparent fat joke. I should have just "bullshit."
I know, there are all of the stories that suggest that he is a cannibal with a predilection for eating small children, but I assure you that these stories are most likely untrue. It is very difficult to make rational arguments against him, such as his demonstrated ineptitude at foreign policy in a time of global crisis, his lack of any coherent message on how he plans to do anything and his constant lying, when people keep saying things such as "Romney seen eating three babies in an Ohio hotel," or "Dear God! Romney ate my baby in broad daylight and tried to write me a check to stop my screaming!" This is a country of laws and Presidential candidates are very high profile; it is difficult for anything they do to go unnoticed by either law enforcement or someone with a camera. Since it is illegal to eat babies in America, I'm positive that Romney would have been arrested by now, had he committed such a crime. So, please, let's let cooler heads prevail and stop with what are surely baseless attacks.
Now, Paul Ryan I could see eating a fucking baby.
Paul Ryan says he got laid at four years old.
Paul Ryan says he can bench press a church.
Paul Ryan says his daddy can beat up your daddy.
I believe the courts have ruled so. However, why do non-citizens, such as corporations, have this right?
If our rights extend to non-citizens, shouldn't freedom of speech also extend to people in other countries? Certainly violence shouldn't, but that's not what I'm suggesting.
If non-citizens are not entitled to our Constitutional rights, what separates corporations from other non-citizens, giving them Constitutional rights other non-citizens do not enjoy?
The problem with this issue is that education really does need to be reformed, just not as a corporate venture. America needs to care about it and show it by paying for it. If we go by what we pay for, it appears that we care more about waging war than anything. This must change.
Profile InformationMember since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 18,530