We can (well, most of us, at least), however, we don’t think quite the same way you do. The problem is that to you, the words you write are imbued with lots and lots of additional information – meanings, associations, memories etc. --, while to the rest of us, they’re just the bare words. You try to convey the subtext you sense or feel using various means of conveying emphasis, an impact that to you, the words have, but to us, they lack: capitalization, ellipses, unconventional structuring; all those extra-textual elements you apply to try and convey some meaning the bare words themselves don’t include. However, it evidently doesn’t work too well; but the problem isn’t that we do a poor job at decoding your messages, it’s that you fail to translate the inner, subjective richness your arguments have to you into an objectively communicable form. It’s like with Louis Wain: where the rest of the world just saw a couple of plain old cats, he saw this; where you see a cogent argument, we see this.
The thing is that, objectively, Wain’s cats just were plain old ones; and similarly, your argument may not have objectively communicable content – and in its present form, it is impossible for us to judge whether or not it does.
So, if you want us to discuss your position, you need to make an effort to get across everything you wish to express without feeling the need to tack on extra structure to communicate hidden subtexts, which is impossible for us to accurately decipher; put everything in plain text, and if you are satisfied that it includes everything you wish to communicate, if you don’t feel the need to add on any extraneous formatting, capitalization, ellipses and the like, then try submitting it for discussion.
There is neither a question nor substance in your post. Whatsoever. All I see (and anyone else sees, if you would at least try to comprehend all the replies you are getting) is a long scrawl of insane, incoherent ramblings with no logic, reason, data, or rationality whatsoever. You’ll find this is a board for people who respect those things. It is not the place for you. The place for you has thick, padded walls and lots of medicine.
Except for his pro-choicey stance, Bill Clinton wasn’t too bad a President at all. It hurts to say that he & Gingrich together got the country on solid financial grouds.
Lurking Guest, several posters have pointed out that your OP seems to be mostly gibberish. I understand if this upsets you, but the fact is, by pretty much any definition, a large proportion of your post IS gibberish. Here are just a few examples out of many:
This sentence is little more than a string of names and locations, with no clue what their relationship to each other is supposed to be.
Why are the words know, connect, talk and lower classes in the above sentence in quotes? Are you saying that the persons you are referring to (presumably a series of former US presidents mentioned earlier in the post) do not in fact know each other, connect with each other or talk about lower classes? What is the point of such a statement? What’s with all the ellipses, rather than ending sentences with periods, as is standard for written English?
This at least makes a coherent statement of some kind. The problem is, you present no evidence whatever that ‘every major Leader’ is laughing at the poor, or why this might be so. Presumably you are trying to present a convincing argument of some kind. Don’t you think you should support your argument with at least one verifiable fact?
This seems to be a habit of yours. Merely reciting a list of names of individuals and groups you don’t like, with a vague assertion that you have entirely made up, does not a logical argument make.
As others have said, if you have a political statement you you want to make, just fucking say it already, without all the pointless filigree. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then for fucks sake please stop cluttering up the board with this crap.
I’ll take a stab at it, since I don’t have anything better to do at the moment.
As a human being, I want to better my situation.
But there are forces working against these ‘unalienable rights’. Here is a list of individuals who are actively thwarting the endeavours of The People: [insert list of names]. These ‘world leaders’ do not care about The People. They only see us as pawns to move around on the game board of the world to A) increase their own power and fortune, and B) to laugh at, based on the premise that comedy occurs when something bad happens to someone else. We The People only want to live their lives as we see fit. But we are not allowed to. If we make money, the Powerful steal it from us. When we simply try to impose our world view, which is, after all, the only right and proper one as God intended, we are ridiculed or worse. We are not in the ‘club’. We will never be allowed in the ‘club’. No matter what we do or how much we try, these World Villains will put every obstacle in our path for their own enrichment and amusement. ‘See the little monkey? It’s wearing a suit! Isn’t that precious? Well, as long as he doesn’t get to uppity we can keep him around for laughs.’
Is that about it?
Aside frim the jokes and the general incoherent rambling nature of the first post I got one thing out of it
It’s more about money than it is poltical philosophy. Most Politicians on both sides of the aisle will sell the American public down the river to protect thier own financial interests and future.
With that in mind why is the title “give it up liberals”? Both liberals and conservatives are getting screwed.
