They are in collusion with the abductors of Sean Goldman to keep him away from his father.
WTF!!!!
I would think that their culture would desire to get a child back to his family as fast as possible, but they are acting TOTALLY against this concept.
This is a FREAKING no-brainer. The father and the mother were cusodial parents, the mom kidnapped the child, and now the child is being held by people who have no right to the child. The father is the parent and the child belongs to him. And the specious argument that this family in Brazil might have a right to the child on the basis that he spent so much time with them is the MOST absurd thing I've ever heard. So, basically, if I kidnap a child and spend enough time in Brazil with the child, he's mine to keep?
Brazil, go screw yourself. If this is the logic you use in the most important of circumstances, you are more of a hindrance than a friend.
If you recall the Elian Gonzales situation, that situation lasted a few months. This BS in Brazil has last YEARS. The US government sent the Elian back to Communist Cuba because we knew he belonged with his father.
And for you Brazilians:
Eles estão em conluio com os raptores de Sean Goldman para mantê-lo longe de seu pai.
WTF!!
Gostaria de pensar que a sua cultura desejaria receber uma criança de volta à sua família o mais rápido possível, mas eles estão agindo totalmente contra este conceito.
Esta é uma FREAKING acéfalo. O pai ea mãe eram pais cusodial, a mãe da criança raptada, e agora a criança está sendo realizada por pessoas que não têm o direito à criança. O pai é o progenitor e da criança pertence a ele. E o argumento capcioso que esta família no Brasil poderia ter o direito de a criança com base no que ele passou tanto tempo com eles é a coisa mais absurda que eu já ouvi. Então, basicamente, se eu sequestrar uma criança e passar bastante tempo no Brasil com a criança, ele é meu para manter?
Brasil, vá-se o parafuso. Se esta é a lógica que você usa no mais importante das circunstâncias, você é mais um obstáculo do que um amigo.
Se você se lembrar da situação Elian Gonzales, situação que durou alguns meses. Esta BS no Brasil nos últimos anos. O governo enviou ao E.U. Elian de volta para Cuba comunista, porque sabia que ele pertencia a seu pai.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
This really is enough already.
For heaven's sake, just stop the rabid partisanship.
I cannot have a civil conversation with any Conservative. That does not mean I get into a fight with them. It means that I cannot have a rational discussion about the issues with a Conservative without fear that they'll fly off the handle. Basically, I talk about the things we agree on, and don't let them know about the things we don't agree on, because I know they'll flip out. But the reverse is never true. They spout all sorts of hatred and half-truths about the issues, and I just smile. Why don't I fight back, if my arguments are so good? Because these Conservatives are not speaking from a logical position. If I were to start replying to their arguments they'd just start getting angry and spouting more hatred and half-truths, which are impossible to contradict because they have no basis in logic, and then they would definitely start a REAL argument, not the rational logical kind.
What has pissed off the Conservatives so much? I mean REALLY??? Two guys ran for president, and one of them won fair and square.
The main argument they seem to have is that he's a "socialist", or for the real psychos, that he's a "communist". On what basis do they assert that he's a socialist? Don't give me any BS about "he's stealing money from hard working Americans." King George did a lot of that himself. Oh, so, sorry, he stole the money from our children with their bloated national budgets to pay for a war against a Iraq, on the unfounded basis that Iraq was making WMD's.
And how am I supposed to argue against a rumor, or just utter hate? How am I to refute an assertion that Obama is a Communist? It's impossible. I'd have to basically show all of his public opinions and bills he's written, and point out how these are not communist inspired. But all these lazy, ignorant f*cks have to do is throw out the assertion of him being a communist, and they "win." They win the hearts of those who don't like Obama, and they just confuse everyone else, because, as I said, it is impossible to prove that ANYONE is not a communist. OK, so Henry Kissinger was a commie, and so was Shirly Temple, George W. Bush, my dog, and Captain Kirk. If I'm wrong, prove it.
For those that have at least two working brain cells, please listen to the following.
Republicans have labeled Democrats as "tax and spend." However, Republicans are "borrow and spend." The only reason you don't hear this rebuttal is because Democrats just suck at coining catchy, pejorative terms for the competition. The "borrow and spend" behavior of the Republicans is a true, uncontested fact. They have to be "borrow and spend," because they don't pull in enough tax revenue to pay the bills. You may reply that lower taxes help the economy, and this increases tax income. But exactly when are we supposed to start paying the damn loans back? Low taxes are great, but I think it should be obvious that there has to be a balance between the "tax" and "borrow" philosophies.
"The Democrats borrow just as much...." Yeah, try and prove it. I assert that they don't. Now, go lookup a zillion reports and budgets from the past 40 years or so. But you will also need to lookup who wrote each part of the budget, because the President is not the only one writing the budget. There are a ton of congressmen on both sides of the aisle that put in special interest legislation for their districts and for those who fund their campaigns. Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait...
I cannot have a civil conversation with any Conservative. That does not mean I get into a fight with them. It means that I cannot have a rational discussion about the issues with a Conservative without fear that they'll fly off the handle. Basically, I talk about the things we agree on, and don't let them know about the things we don't agree on, because I know they'll flip out. But the reverse is never true. They spout all sorts of hatred and half-truths about the issues, and I just smile. Why don't I fight back, if my arguments are so good? Because these Conservatives are not speaking from a logical position. If I were to start replying to their arguments they'd just start getting angry and spouting more hatred and half-truths, which are impossible to contradict because they have no basis in logic, and then they would definitely start a REAL argument, not the rational logical kind.
What has pissed off the Conservatives so much? I mean REALLY??? Two guys ran for president, and one of them won fair and square.
The main argument they seem to have is that he's a "socialist", or for the real psychos, that he's a "communist". On what basis do they assert that he's a socialist? Don't give me any BS about "he's stealing money from hard working Americans." King George did a lot of that himself. Oh, so, sorry, he stole the money from our children with their bloated national budgets to pay for a war against a Iraq, on the unfounded basis that Iraq was making WMD's.
And how am I supposed to argue against a rumor, or just utter hate? How am I to refute an assertion that Obama is a Communist? It's impossible. I'd have to basically show all of his public opinions and bills he's written, and point out how these are not communist inspired. But all these lazy, ignorant f*cks have to do is throw out the assertion of him being a communist, and they "win." They win the hearts of those who don't like Obama, and they just confuse everyone else, because, as I said, it is impossible to prove that ANYONE is not a communist. OK, so Henry Kissinger was a commie, and so was Shirly Temple, George W. Bush, my dog, and Captain Kirk. If I'm wrong, prove it.
For those that have at least two working brain cells, please listen to the following.
Republicans have labeled Democrats as "tax and spend." However, Republicans are "borrow and spend." The only reason you don't hear this rebuttal is because Democrats just suck at coining catchy, pejorative terms for the competition. The "borrow and spend" behavior of the Republicans is a true, uncontested fact. They have to be "borrow and spend," because they don't pull in enough tax revenue to pay the bills. You may reply that lower taxes help the economy, and this increases tax income. But exactly when are we supposed to start paying the damn loans back? Low taxes are great, but I think it should be obvious that there has to be a balance between the "tax" and "borrow" philosophies.
"The Democrats borrow just as much...." Yeah, try and prove it. I assert that they don't. Now, go lookup a zillion reports and budgets from the past 40 years or so. But you will also need to lookup who wrote each part of the budget, because the President is not the only one writing the budget. There are a ton of congressmen on both sides of the aisle that put in special interest legislation for their districts and for those who fund their campaigns. Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)