Message to fans of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other Libertarians

[ProSense]

President Obama took the civil rights to a level you were never serious about taking it to. Your attempt to demagogue the issue no longer works. Your attempt to have it both ways has been exposed: free from Federal Government interference, but free to discriminate.

The President's statement eclipsed that ambiguity with a clear statement on mariage equality.

It's a bizarre thing to watch the few who are twisting in the wind to change the historic fact that for the first time ever, a sitting U.S. President (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002666708) stated his support for marriage equality.

Who is leading on this issue among the candidates: Ron Paul? Gary Johnson? Both support states rights and the right of religious instituions to discriminate.

Ron Paul Condemns Obama's Decision to Abandon DOMA

Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Obama Administration will cease to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against legal challenges.

“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

The notable exception was Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who said he would leave the definition of marriage to the states in accordance with the Constitution. He went one step further, though, suggesting the entire institution would be best left to the church.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57328247-503544/gop-debate-in-iowa-gets-weepy

Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties

AFER’s Ted Olson Supports Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Endorsement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002665147

"Obama's legal, policy & personal views are not in any way contradictory and present a clear path
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=667131

President Obama did the right thing that so many challenged him to do, claimed he was too coward to do or insisted he was too politically opportunistic to do. He did it. Challenge met. Cowardly claims dashed. Opportunistic meme unraveled.

Among the candidates, President Obama owns this issue, matching his personal evolution with comprehensive and consistent actions.

President Obama Endorses Freedom To Marry

WASHINGTON – President Obama said this afternoon in an interview with ABC News that he believes that the freedom to marry should be extended to same sex couples.

Until now, the president has only favored civil unions, although he had said his views on same-sex marriage were “constantly evolving.” While in office, President Obama and his administration have taken critical strides toward LGBT equality by refusing to defend the discriminatory and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in court and pushing Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and reaffirming support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

“President Obama is doing the right thing and showing leadership by recognizing that lesbians and gays should be treated as equal citizens,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. “The freedom to marry whomever we love and want to share our life with is fundamental to who we are and what we stand for as a country. The fight for fairness and equal treatment under the law for all Americans took a critical step forward today.”

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/president-obama-endorses-freedom-marry

Transformational
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002666422

This is a moment for celebration, not animosity.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Any sincere historians will remark about the dimensionality of his chess game.

And I mean that. We're most of us saying "wait... what?".

K'/R

[pnwmom]

2. I don't think Obama is suggesting that Churches should be required to perform same-sex marriages.

Is that really your impression? None of the states that have approved marriage equality require Churches to marry anyone.

Gary Johnson thinks religious organizations should be free to follow their own beliefs, and I think Obama shares this view.

[Dragonfli]

3. Um, if you wish to address fans of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other Libertarians you should try

posting where they congregate, with the exception of a few trolls and lurkers, they are simply not here.

Try FreeperPublic, I hear they like them over there.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I'm afraid I've seen a few here from time to time

Fortunately, not too many.

[Erose999]

41. Sheeeeeit, this place is crawling with PaulBots, as well as zotted Freepers. They may not post, but

they're certainly lurking.

[Dragonfli]

44. They're everywhere! Better check under the bed (they are like .001 percent of the population)

Get a grip man, they have no power, why are you so afraid that they lurk everywhere?

The zotted freepers may be more present, but they join and post here as blue dogs or Mineral enthusiasts and most here fall for it. They are the problem here, Republicans that are not crazy enough to be allowed there but are sometimes applauded here under other names.

Paulites hate government so much they don't want any, Ayn Rand wanna be types can't even pretend to like programs that are the heart and soul of the Democratic party. I doubt we are as infested as you think.

[dionysus]

45. obsessed with mineral man much?

[Dragonfli]

46. Who?

[dionysus]

56. uh huh

[Prophet 451]

4. I have a shorter message for them

FUCK YOU!

Libertarianism is just a highbrow way of saying folks should starve because I don't wanna pay taxes.

[LeftishBrit]

6. +1000

[BCanuck]

19. Highbrow, eh?

This the first time I've seen this site - pretty tough place judging by the language.

I've never heard a libertarian say people should starve, maybe you can post a link to Ron Paul or Gary Johnson's pro-starvation policies for all of us. As far I've heard, Gary Johnson did not implement any pro-starvation policies in the 8 years he was Governor of New Mexico.

[Ikonoklast]

22. Fuck Gary Johnson and any Libertarian douchebags who like him.

How's that for some language?

Get the point?

[maddezmom]

36. +1000

[DevonRex]

30. And you're not here anymore to complain.

Bye!

[LeftishBrit]

8. Do you actually agree with fans of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson?

Or did you mean that you agree with ProSense?

You should clarify this.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I think I see what is happening. You repeat the title of the thread whenever you post.

This can create misunderstandings; people, including myself, thought you were expressing agreement with the Libertarians. Apologies for my own misunderstanding; but you should just post without repeating the thread title - then it would be clearer.

Welcome to DU.

[ProSense]

11. It left the building. n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

10. "suggesting the entire institution would be best left to the church"

Ho Ho, Ha Ha, He He

I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but that gem caught my eye.

Why not leave birth control in their hands too.

[Blue_Tires]

12. Of course the dirty secret no one points out about Paul

is that he is a VERY "selective" wannabe libertarian...

He promotes unfettered rights and freedoms for people in his favorite socio-economic demographics; everyone else can get screwed...

[ProSense]

13. I mean, how

can he claim to supports state/church rights on marriage and be pro DOMA?

Nutty!

[BCanuck]

18. Ron Paul's select groups

I get that Ron Paul is not the most popular person around here for all sorts of reasons,
but what socio-economic demographics does he favor and how does he propose to implement this favoritism?

[Blue_Tires]

35. seriously?

Anyone who isn't white/male/hetero/christian/wealthy...Yes, for whatever reason there are some people outside of that demographic who love Paul (where I live it's because they hate taxes and/or actually believe that bullshit about Paul being anti-war and legalizing weed), but they are nothing more than useful idiots to him...

But I'm sure you already knew Paul has at best a shaky reputation when it comes to race, reproductive rights, and a lot of other things (just take a look at how many extremist or hate groups have endorsed him)...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. Are you advocating that churches should be forced to perform gay marriages?

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned that is simply not constitutional and I don't know of anyone who's advocating that. That's a right-wing boogeyman.

My only concern is that the federal and state governments recognize gay marriage.

[BCanuck]

23. States and the Feds

If some States refuse to recognize gay marriage equality should the Federal gov't intervene like civil rights in the '60s?
What tools does the Federal govt have to intervene?

I'm not a lawyer, but marriage is an area of the law left to the States.
Can the Federal govt legally define marriage for one, some or all the states?

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. Yes they should. It is unconstitutional to deny rights to people

who are legally married based on the laws of the state in which they were married.

Gay couples who are legally married are denied federal tax, beneficiary, estate (etc) benefits as well as protection in manners such as emergency medical when visiting states that don't recognize gay marriage.

Let me ask - would you also like to see interracial marriage no longer federally protected and up to the whims of any given state legislature? As you are defending Racist Ron, this is probably a moot question, but would like to know.

[DevonRex]

29. Oh, you poor dead thing!

Don't come back soon!

[Blue_Tires]

37. Funny you mention that

Since Paul has repeatedly stated he was against Federal intervention with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which is an old, moldy Birch argument)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

38. If the federal government recognizes a gay couple as married on their tax return.....

....how can the state not?

Seems to me they'd have a hard time with that.

[SidDithers]

15. Yah, but weed!!...nt

Sid

[Blue_Tires]

17. lol...start a Ron Paul thread and without fail at least one person

opens a new account for the sole purpose of telling us why we're all wrong and Ron Paul is the only real hope for America's future...

They must have an archive of stock posts because I always see the *same* talking points...

[maddezmom]

58. yup, it's like flypaper

[uppityperson]

21. Who are you supporting for pres at this time?

[Ikonoklast]

24. Fuck Gary Johnson and any Libertarian douchebags who like him.

Just in case you missed it the first time.

[uppityperson]

27. He's gone. FGJ and FRP.

[Ikonoklast]

28. Fuck Ron Paul.

Sorry, I just didn't want to leave without saying that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Well after covering the Ron Paul Rally

last friday for the Magazine... come November, and this was the consensus among the media gaggle after plenty of interviews, they are either staying home... or writing Ron in...

No serious. I am as serious as a heart attack.

And I have rarely seen so many reporters reach the same conclusion after two hours of interviews. Nor have I rarely seen so many reporters actually shaking heads as we all realized the same thing.

They had ONE real gripe though... I will give them that one. Media has done a pretty poor job of covering Ron, especially early on when he did well in polls. But hey, media does not bother with trouble makers, regardless of who they are. Yeah that includes Dean, Edwards and Occupy.

[Blue_Tires]

33. Paul had the media eating out of his hands in '08 and did nothing with it

Sarah Palin had the media eating out of her hands in '08, and she's arguably still the most recognizable and visible GOP pol...It's easy to see who made the most of their opportunity...

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Are we talking of 2008 when it comes to Paul?

No we are not. Are we talking of him polling well in 2012 early on and the press not covering him fairly.

The job of the media is not to pick and chose, but to cover candidates fairly. What if I told you my local paper refused to cover another presidential candidate in 2004? Since it was Dean you probably would be offended.

That is a problem. I have no problem telling you I do not like Ron Paul, that does not mean I will let that color my coverage. There are people out there, a few I know, that still apreciate that way of thinking. It's not my place to make news, but report on them.

The national Meda is in the business of making and shaping news any more. And in that criticism Ron Paul is more than just correct.

[Blue_Tires]

42. I get your point

I just maintain that Paul intentionally flies below the radar because:

1. The more media attention he gets, sooner or later he's going to have to answer for his more controversial/contradictory positions

2. Paul and his minions get to play up that "underdog outsider/nobody wants us in the race/too real for the mainstream media" -image

3. Paul's campaign is clearly trying to hijack delegates on a state level by installing the goon squad in party chairmanships (to which I say if he spent as much effort on the actual campaign as these behind-the-scenes tricks, he'd be polling higher)

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Point by point

1. The more media attention he gets, sooner or later he's going to have to answer for his more controversial/contradictory positions

No they don't, if they did they would not be thanking media for actually showing to an event, which quite frankly surprised me as to how well it was attended this late in the game.

2. Paul and his minions get to play up that "underdog outsider/nobody wants us in the race/too real for the mainstream media" -image

They don't get to play that game, media actually gives them the ammo to play that game.

3. Paul's campaign is clearly trying to hijack delegates on a state level by installing the goon squad in party chairmanships (to which I say if he spent as much effort on the actual campaign as these behind-the-scenes tricks, he'd be polling higher)

And that is a story the media has not covered either for one simple reason, they are not interested in covering Paul whatsoever since he is a trouble maker. So the little there is, is coming from mostly smaller outlets.

I should add, he IS building a movement. He is not the first politico to have that long view in US History. He is just the first one to have that long view in a couple generations. I would not discount him too much if I were you. The last one to do that started that little thing called building a modern conservative movement after the 1964 drubbing.

For the record in the really small media market I work at, it will not be part of the story, while California changed to proportional representation, I will be honestly shocked if Paul does well in California. Which goes back to polls and all what coverage is done and all that. Nor is the magazine going to go after that one since resources are far more important on local stories and local and federal candidates for the House, who for the record, are not getting too much coverage from our local paper of record EITHER. That said, the California Republican party is in such a disarray they are ripe for them pickings.

For the record, I am not defending Paul, just using him as a foil for some serious media criticism. Yup, looking at my own newly found job. It is not my job to tell you who is viable and who is not. It is my job, especially early on, to cover people who are making half an effort to run. It is also my job, not to laugh at a social justice movement, see Occupy Wall Street, but to get out of my fracking office, and walk down to the plaza and find what the hell is going on? Ah yes, a local station, two blocks away from the Civil Center who never, not ONCE, do that. But they took plenty of potshots at Occupy in the evening news.

What you have right now is a media system that is part of the problem, not part of the reporting. Making news is not what media should be doing, but reporting on it is what we should be doing.

Example, at the Ron Paul Rally we had a Republican running against Feinstein... yup, his chances of even getting second place in the primary REALISTICALLY are lower than whale shit. He was there, I still did a short interview... he got SOME exposure in an online paper. Do you think I was wrong and should have done what the U-T reporter, and the two TV stations did, avoid him like the plague since he is not considered more than fringe? What is it?

What is more, should I have NOT mentioned the fifty or so counter protesters?

Should I also no longer mention in write ups, like my fellow reporters, that a lot of the local demonstrations are organized by Occupy groups? Should I forget that half the San Diego Delegation was from the various Occupies at the Democratic Convention?

These are meta questions. And yes, the Paul people, stuck clock is right twice a day, are correct in their media critique

[Blue_Tires]

50. What did you ask him in the interview??

Did he actually say anything of substance? or was it canned quotes?

Also, is he *really* a "troublemaker"? Or does he just play one on stage? For all his 'outsider' status Paul has usually been a nice, obedient GOP lackey most of his career, save for some symbolic votes on stuff that would have passed anyway...

If he honestly wanted to make trouble for both sides, he would have long dumped his party and gone independent...But like I said, I never thought he was serious about trying to win the presidency in the first place...

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Who Hughes?

It was talking points. The usual things that come at these things. It wasn't one prepared over two hours with long questions, like yesterday with a progressive candidate.

But both sides use talking points.

As to Ron Paul he is a trouble maker, but the best pork man in Congress. For that I ain't gonna fault him, that's what congress people do. Byrd used to be better, and if a tea party decided to run against him, that's your opening.

But seriously, you start doing interviews of candidates and it is obvious after a while...talking points are the norm on all sides, and no, to the pol they are rarely talking points, but you shall know them by their answers. I pegged Hugues as libertarian hard core within sixty seconds.

Hughes I asked him about women's rights, defense, energy projects in the back country, that is kind of hot around here, and border matters such as free trade and war on drugs. Did not have time to ask other questions.

Now yesterday in a programmed interview with a progressive, that was a two hour interview.

[maddezmom]

43. he gets the coverage he deserves, he is in it for himself not to win it

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

he says he's building a movements, yeah a bm.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. No, he is a trouble maker

hence he is not covered.

Or rather, not covered fairly.

I am all for fact checks. Lord knows I have done them after local debates... (another thing the media is not doing, with many a candidate and lord knows some good ones are told at debates, yes shockingly even by Democrats)...

But by your logic Dean, Edwards and Occupy also got the coverage they deserve. So who else should we not cover? I am all ears.

It used NOT to be this way in the United States... I understand this is the news people are used to... but we are back to the media of the 1880s, not what, with all it's problems, existed back in the 1960s and 70s. So yes, he is correct on that one. And in this case it is not because it is Ron Paul, it is because of changes in media culture that help set this us vs them mentality.

[maddezmom]

49. you can cover anyone you want but the MSM isn't going to cover him, not because he's a

trouble maker because he is a racist, xenophobic loon who is never going to win the Republican nomination. Hopefully, this is his last run for president because I'm sick of hearing about him, his fan base and his garbage politics.

As I said elsewhere on this thread, you make good points about Occupy and Dean but as for Edwards, I could give a shit.

And please quit being condescending to those that disagree with you, it doesn't make you look intelligent just the opposite, cocksure.

My father spent over 50 years as a journalist...radio, print, and TV and he'd agree with you about the decline of the MSM but not about the MSM unfair coverage of Ron Paul.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. It is, he's 76

Rand will run next. And if you think dad is bad, just wait. You have seen nothing.

And I see in your view the media has to play favorites. Just don't complaint when they do it to your side.

[maddezmom]

53. it's not playing favorites it's coming to the reality that Paul isn't worth covering

anymore, he is not a player. NO ONE beside the Paulbots care anymore. He's not going to win and never cared about it any way. Yeah, his fan base will probably vote for Johnson but they were never going to vote for Obama or Romney, imo.

And I won't "complaint" when they do it to my side because it's the nature of the beast. We've seen it for years. There is media bias and we all know it and it's not just in the MSM, fringe sites and blogs pimp Ron Paul, Birther garbage, etc. that make their way into the MSM as well.

You can continue to cover Ron Paul and anyone else and I'll continue to tell you I could give a crap about him or his fanbase and I'm sick of seeing it here and elsewhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Alas that is not my decision to make

as media. Don't worry, they decided Dean was not worth covering anymore in 2004, and boy the howls here. How could they!!!!

And we will continue to cover people you object. That is what RESPONSIBLE media does. You are free to ignore that coverage. We will also continue to cover people you may like, you are free to follow that coverage too. That is again, what responsible media does. I understand you may not be used to that, since that is the standard that used to exist two or three decades ago, not in the age of FOX and MSMBC , or should I compare to this to the Hurst paper era?

It is absolutely NOT my place to decide that for you. It is YOUR place as a citizen to make that decision.

For the record, I disagree with Ron Paul and Libertarians in more ways than I can list, but I will not pretend they do not matter, and hide my head in sand either. You, on the other hand, are free to do so. You see when doing political reporting, I cannot pretend that. Also as a responsible citizen I cannot pretend that either.

[zappaman]

55. "And we will continue to cover people you object. That is what RESPONSIBLE media does."

So now you are not only a self-described journalist but "responsible media"?

"Responsible Media"...Like writing an entire article full of false information based on a Facebook posting?
Cop, fireman, warrior on the front lines of a battle, trained historian, meteorologist, nuclear radiation expert, responsible journalist...you madam, are a modern-day Renaissance Woman!

ETA: Forgot to say "fuck Ron Paul".

[maddezmom]

61. and fuck his fans, too

[maddezmom]

57. I chuckle at your use of RESPONSIBLE media

considering your post about the OWS member that was sent to Syria and passed. And then your behavior in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002271555

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You can chuckle all you want

Since you are asking for censorship, not me.

I find that actually quite hysterical. You know why?

Damn lib'rul media don't cover us enough...and then damn conservative media does not cover us enough. It's true, it's true, most large media outlets are playing the exact same game, of playing favorites...but some of us try.

You know what is even more hysterical, when I do interviews I make a point not to let the person know what are my political views. Hysterical, isn't it?

So what do you want? And what exactly are you objecting to? Me telling you that we will not play the same game fox and msnbc play? You object to us trying hard to let local voters who is running and do interviews with as many candidates who are making an effort to run? Are you seriously objecting to that? And you are also objecting to any coverage of a still Presidntial candidate? I got a paper fer ya, the San Diego Union Tribune.

Among other things you should know about the Trib, well Congressman Filner has not done a thing in Congress. Nope, this was not in the opinion page, but an actual page one, under the fold, story on the mayoral campaign. Oh and when called on the whopper they closed comments. But that is your paper. And we all thought it could not get worst.

I mean that is the same paper that refused to cover Presidential Candidate Dean as well, never mind there were thousands in attendance too.

But you are asking people do this to those you vehemently disagree. Don't read them. Not making you do it...but don't ask small media fighting against the crap large media is doing, to follow that standard.

If you do, you are part of the problem. That you can object to.

By the way we also covered extensively the State Democratic Convention...I guess that is ok in your book. When the republicans do theirs in town, guess what? We will cover it too. Is that a problem? No serious, asking a very serious question. This us vs them is not healthy.

[maddezmom]

60. I'm not asking for censorship

I'm stating very clearly I don't give a fuck about Ron Paul, his fans or what you want to write about him. Notice you didn't address my comments about your shoddy journalism and and then you want me to take you seriously as a journalist just trying to get the truth out and whining about censorship. Okay then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Don't read them

It's that simple...

You don't have two, but above you wrote that media should not cover him since he is insignificant...that my dear is censorship when you ask the media to do that.

Notice you attack, and you do it well.

Nobody is making you read stories on ron Paul or interact with his supporters. This exchange started from an observation at a rally attended by about five thousand people, some coming fom as far away as beyond the El Cajon pass, oh three hours away. Feel free to ignore why this exchange started and that you objected to that coverage.

Oh and let me add your own words.

maddezmom
53. it's not playing favorites it's coming to the reality that Paul isn't worth covering

anymore, he is not a player. NO ONE beside the Paulbots care anymore. He's not going to win and never cared about it any way. Yeah, his fan base will probably vote for Johnson but they were never going to vote for Obama or Romney, imo.

And I won't "complaint" when they do it to my side because it's the nature of the beast. We've seen it for years. There is media bias and we all know it and it's not just in the MSM, fringe sites and blogs pimp Ron Paul, Birther garbage, etc. that make their way into the MSM as well.

You can continue to cover Ron Paul and anyone else and I'll continue to tell you I could give a crap about him or his fanbase and I'm sick of seeing it here and elsewhere.
“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.” -Maria Robinson

[maddezmom]

63. I said they weren't covering him because he no longer is news

he's not going to win, etc. They are plenty of people running for president that haven't ever made the news...why aren't you covering them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Please don't tell me what I can read or how to feel about what I read, dear.

this is why the exchange started:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=674245

Attack? I'd say it's calling you to account for your shoddy journalism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Sorry, but a Presidential candidate

Whether he is viable or not it is news, here is a hint on how wrong you are. Every one of his rallies at UC campuses has been extensively covered by local media.

There is more, each of those rallies has been in the thousands...

Sorry to break this one to you, but you are wrong.

And furthermore, you ignore the movement that he is building. The test will be Rand taking over, but you go ahead. I am sure you'd love it if all local media also stopped covering him. It ain't gonna happen.

Next I fear you will say I am a closet supporter. Don't worry, some of the occupy folk already said that. Apparently I am a democrat in February when I cover the state convention, and a Ron paul fan as of last week for covering the rally.

Let me check my calendar... Phew progressive, after doing that interview on Wendesday.

I wonder if I will be indie by the time the primary rolls around...

[zappaman]

65. Nadin, I know you are not a Ron Paul fan.

Just as I know you are not a journalist.

[maddezmom]

66. Like I've said over and over

Fuck Ron Paul and his supporters. I could care less if you support him or not, write about him or not or whether or not you switch to Indie. Those are all your choices to make. Just as it's my choice to read and comment each time you opine about him, his great movement, his charisma or anything else I disagree. It's a discussion board...don't like it, put me on ignore.

[zappaman]

67. "don't like it, put me on ignore."

Along with the other 149, 956 members...

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Feel free to put me on ignore

Funny thing, I am not a fan. It's a job. Like it or not reporters cover things you personally might object.

Over and over and over again, my politics are not determined by an assignment.

For the record I am not just to the left of Ron Paul, but the President of the United States and most Democrats. I bet even you.

Go ahead, use the ignore button, and for god sakes do not read a paper. You might come across objectionable news.

Also, for the record missing dog stories are very popular...stories on the deals at city council, not so much. Personally I see that as a sign of what is wrong with our civic culture.

[maddezmom]

70. looks like we're at an impasse here because I have no intention of putting you on ignore

or threating to put you on ignore that is your MO not mine. I enjoy being schooled by you since you are all knowing of all things and where only your opinion matters.

Like it or not journalist even citizen journalists get critiqued on their work.

Suffice it to say I'm not surprised to see you back to your meme about missing dogs vs city councils.

[zappaman]

71. Foget about missing dogs

if it didn't happen in the US, it's not news.
Because as our esteemed reporter has pointed out time and time again, the US media does not cover anything that's not in the US.
A perfect example would be the 6 feet of hail that recently fell in Mexico City...
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002410322

[maddezmom]

75. thanks for the link

somehow missed that story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. You wish I put you there

For that reason alone I am not going to.

And no, it's not a meme, it's reality.

Have a good day...

[maddezmom]

74. no, I suggested you put me there if you didn't want to read my posts

and told you I wasn't putting you there because I enjoyed reading yours.

[zappaman]

73. Wow

You may be the first poster in DU history who wasn't put on the dreaded "iggy list" when asked to be!
Congrats!

[maddezmom]

34. Serious....

Fuck Ron Paul and his supporters.

As for the media I'll agree with you on Dean and Occupy but not Edwards. He did well in the media coverage, probably better than he should have now that we know the rumors the press knew and did nothing about at the time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. See post 39

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. ProSense, you are the best! It's like flypaper. You trapped quite a few.

[Number23]

32. That is the best word to describe it -- BIZARRE

It's a bizarre thing to watch the few who are twisting in the wind to change the historic fact that for the first time ever, a sitting U.S. President stated his support for marriage equality.

But I have to say I have not been surprised by one single, solitary person that's been doing it.

[Scurrilous]

76. K & R

[banana convention.]

77. Obama is just oozing with love for GBTBLMNOP

The fact that it's an election year and Biden floated a trial balloon? Nothing to see here...

[ProSense]

78. It's not

"Nothing to see here..."

...nice to eat and run. How was the pepperoni, No. 4?