HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Lyricalinklines » Journal
Page: 1

Lyricalinklines

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Mar 2, 2017, 12:20 AM
Number of posts: 367

Journal Archives

I'm disgusted you've displayed obvious racism while performing the duties of president.

I hate that you, today, quickly claimed as terrorism the fire/explosion/violence reported occurring in the Phillipines. A Philippine government official refuted terrorism claims, offering explanation of first findings to be that of a gambling addict. It's not the first time you've quickly judged violence as terrorism nor the first time you've been incorrect. Time and investigation will tell. You could be correct, you could be incorrect. That's not what I'm calling you out on here.

Right here in your own country, the one you claim to love, you've yet to condemn as terrorism that which occurred 6 days ago in Portland, Oregon. Oh, you tweeted it was "unacceptable" and judged it as violence of hate and intolerance. Very much the acts were hate and intolerance. It was also terrorism. And you chose to not state it for what it was - TERRORISM. You chose to be politically "right" in your official stance. Four days later. Four days after terrorism was again carried out in our country you chose to wait to respond. Two lives lost while protecting two young women. Another one physically wounded and hospitalized as well while protecting those two young women. Many terrorized. Two young women terrorized. Four days no word to a hurting country wanting, needing, its figurehead to lead in uniting as one against terrorism. Four days and you chose to refuse to say those words "terrorism" when it's carried out by white, racist man. These terrorist acts were carried out by a self-identifying white supremacist. A white, racist man from the same country you assumed to protect, preserve and serve. And you chose that time to be politically "right"

Why do you refuse to condemn these acts as terrorism which are perpetrated by white people as spewing hatred and being intolerant? I've heard you say you don't do politically "right". But in these cases you obviously chose to be political "right." Why do you find it so easy to judge non-white people of terrorism? Or label them terrorists when their skin is not white? Why do you leave it to the main stream media to use the word "terrorism" in your name? You've demonstrated you can choose tweeting what you mean on an account that you chose to communicate to the people. What's so hard that you won't condemn terrorist acts as terrorism irregardless of the perpetrators skin color? I'm disgusted by your choices in this.

I'm disgusted you've displayed obvious racism while performing the duties of president of the country I love. The country I've supported and helped in its protection.

You'll likely never see this, I realize this. I'm getting this out of me and posting it in a place I believe it'll be respected as intended - an expression of disgust and disappointment about your obvious support of racism. I'll feel heard. I don't Facebook. I don't Tweet. I joined this place after trolling it for months after the election. I found here a place of like minded citizen voters who support each other in common goals for the good of our beloved country. Some will agree with my expressions here, others will disagree. Either way, it will be done with respectful "agree to disagree", something I believe you could benefit from learning how to do. You've shown you can learn new tricks, maybe you could consider learning something that would be beneficial to the greater good and the country you assumed to lead.

Respect for differences. Respect for responsibility. Respect for honesty.

It's the Democratic way.

Posted by Lyricalinklines | Fri Jun 2, 2017, 03:04 AM (7 replies)

SELF CONTROL IS THE ISSUE.

A man is responsible for his own actions.  Period.  If he has no management over his actions then he's a danger to public and needs be managed as such. Period.

A man who sees a lactating woman as sexual needs "rehabilitated" from misplaced sexual understanding. A man who determines to touch a woman's body without her permission has the inability to manage his sexual urges. This is assault. He's a danger to public and needs be managed as such. Period.

A man who blames a woman for his own actions based on seeing her in a sexual way lacks personal responsibility. A man without personal responsibility is a danger to public and needs be managed as such.

The article may be "dated" however the subject is ongoing and needs addressed. Period.

Posted by Lyricalinklines | Sat Apr 22, 2017, 11:01 PM (0 replies)

Out pacing by nearly double at current pace....

Obama: 333 into 8 years is roughly 42 rounds per year.
42 into 52 is roughly 1.2 or every 8.4 days a round of golf.

Trump: 16 rounds in 79 days is 4.9 or one round every 5 days.

I don't have a problem with a president recreating with golf.

I do have a problem with him profiting with tax money while doing it. Since he recreates at courses he owns, eats/stays at properties he owns, then it stands to reason he's making money while recreating on the tax payer dime. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

His actions speak loud and clear: he has no issue with his businesses collecting fees/profiting from housing/feeding his security, which is paid for with tax monies. Yet he expects tax payers to be fine with eliminating/cutting the very funds that feed, house, administer health care and general safety care for poor/disabled elderly. AND says the voters told him this is what they want when they voted him in!

He obviously won't use a course near the white house thereby forcing that total cost on society. If there were no course close to the WH, it would make sense he visit his in Florida.

Regardless, the costs incurred for travel/security/meals and incidentals add up. He's on track to incur these costs 292 times in 4 years. All while he wants to cut housing assistance/food assistance/medical assistance for thousands of elderly, poor and disabled.

How can this not be against the law?
Posted by Lyricalinklines | Mon Apr 10, 2017, 12:30 AM (0 replies)

I'd enjoy hearing his experiences

That led to the wisdom of this statement!

Was it from personal experience? Or second hand?

Interesting and apropos nonetheless!
Posted by Lyricalinklines | Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:25 AM (0 replies)

Republicans are using trump just as he's using them.

I'm sick at the thought of trump selling America. The fact the republican party surrounds/protects him after not supporting his candidacy speaks to using him to gain the third arm of government. Seems to me Republicans will do ANYTHING to merit 'their cause' over and above the will of the people. The party as a whole seems to have no integrity.
Posted by Lyricalinklines | Sat Mar 4, 2017, 05:30 PM (0 replies)

YES!! trump claimed election rigged maybe he knew what he was talking about.

So many lies & coincidences combined with his ability to insinuate into a situation without giving credible information. I'm done being charitable with situation.
Posted by Lyricalinklines | Sat Mar 4, 2017, 03:39 AM (1 replies)

Suuuurrrre they do.

Ha ha

YES!

Republicans have claimed since 2009 they've their own health care plan. They obstructed their own work as well as that of the country for years because they didn't like who was in office. And now they claim "it's hard to find a way" to give ACCESS. I find it Sickening!

They've nothing locked up until they provide the plan for discussion.
Posted by Lyricalinklines | Thu Mar 2, 2017, 09:03 PM (0 replies)

Lines could be blurred, yet needs addressed.

I see your point that the greater good shall be recipients of tax dollars. I think of how many tax dollars are utilized for special interest groups in exchange for monetary support of elections. And how many corporations accept tax dollars in the form of rebates/tax cuts and report continuing record profits. Certainly, those corporations are 'creating jobs' yet at the cost of tax dollars that perhaps could serve the greater good else where - health care perhaps - when their profits can now than provide necessary funds to properly run their business profitably, albeit a lessor profit.

I disagree with the word 'target' usage here since it implies an intent. Intent means I know a group will be subject to effects of such decisions.

I question then the further decrease in taxes on those 1% who use lobbied for loop holes to whittle actual paid taxes to less than that paid by average middle class. When cuts to assist poor occur concurrently in the same budget the logical conclusion is favoring one group over another (this example: wealthy favored over poor) not to mention divisive as well. Therefore, knowing the poor (disabled/elderly) will not be able to access care, thereby knowingly and willingly subjecting an entire population to no future care and the results of lack of necessary future care to restore health.

I see many layers of prejudice, classist even elitism in how Republicans address this issue.

Posted by Lyricalinklines | Thu Mar 2, 2017, 02:09 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1