Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,

Posted By: regardless of which direction it comes from. sm on 2008-12-09
In Reply to: But if it was babbling blather from the other side, - you would be fine with it -hypocritical.nm

You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
It was tacky of him in the 1st place to play the
nm
helping the lower class and middle class will NOT
Giving handouts to those that do not work certainly does nothing to help their situations; it only encourages it. Middle class are your working class, the support and backbone of this country. Obama's interference in their lives is just that, interference. The democrats have always felt they have the right to interfere in our lives by taxing us to death. What does that do to help us? It only makes us MORE dependent on the government......nothing about MORE government is helping us in any way.

I'm glad you think crime is JUST a biproduct of poverty, not race, which proves you obviously don't live in an area where that would prove you wrong. I live in an area where I know that every BLACK has the same opportunities as whites, the EXACT same education and FREE two college years....FREE, FREE, FREE.....all they have to do is finish high school....not all As or even any Bs, just finish high school. Now, a lot of young people take advantage of that but MANY do not. What do they do instead? Stand on the street corner, run around with their pants hanging down to the knees, steal for drugs, sell drugs to make money so they can buy expensive hubcaps for their souped up cars, buy their expensive shoes and ugly pants, and make MORE BABIES, which by the way, I SUPPORT with my taxes. No, I don't want to hear all that hogwash about their poverty. The media has made so much of that garbage, those that don't live in or near it, don't realize many blacks have the same opportunities; it's just that a lot of blacks, especially in my town, have grown up generation after generation living off the taxpayer and see no reason whatsoever to change their situation. They make more babies.....I'm forced to raise them so that generation can make more babies. Do I wish their situation would change? ABSOLUTELY! Do they have plenty of resources available in this town alone to change that? ABSOLUTELY! Do most of them take advantage of that? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! Yes, the majority of crimes in our town is committed by blacks but it AIN'T because of poverty; it's because THEY WANT TO COMMIT A CRIME!! We have poor whites as well and the majority of those do not feel they have the right to steal what belongs to others, kill someone over drugs or a stupid girl, or whatever else one wants to use as an excuse.

Obama will do nothing to help those that feel entitled and look to Obama as just a bigger free paycheck. You don't help anyone by giving them free handouts. If they don't want an educate, won't help themselves, and continue to feel ENTITLED to MY money, Obama certainly won't change that by encouraging laziness and lack of worth ethics.

Making the middle class dependent on the government is in no way helping them; if anything, Obama will be the end to the middle class as we know it today.
Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric

Per Onelook:
noun:  study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)  (hmmm...yep)
noun:  using language effectively to please or persuade  (okay, I get it)
noun:  high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
noun:  loud and confused and empty talk  (that's the nuts and bolts of it)


As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered. 


Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it.  Get over it.  If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.


 


Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric.  Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done.  And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do?  Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes.  ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
applies to the 21st century please?
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.

Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?

I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain?  Your statement makes no sense.  The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east.  Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on?  Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US?  Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there. 


Why would I care about your opinion?  I don't.  There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board.  Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what?  Most of them disagree with me on most everything.  LOL 


I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.


Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.

Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.

Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!

Oh the hypocrasy!


Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric

Fox News Crosses the Line


Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters



For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.


Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.


For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."


If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.


 


Link below to sign petition. 


No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm

How many more lies before everyone wakes up?


Editorial Toledo Blade:  Another lie on Iraq


WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.




They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.




No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.




No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.




The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.




As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.




Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.




And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.




Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.




Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.




So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.


 


Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.

There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.

And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm

Translation: I watch a lot of Fox News and stick strictly to party rhetoric.nm
z
I won't be nasty. sm
American Woman, if I wuz to venture a guess, I'd say you and gt were definitely the same person, but I don't really care.  I really don't.  And I don't care if you believe me either.  GT did tell us both not to leave. I am sorry that you don't feel the need to verify that, but GT just as much admitted to it above, so there you go.  Have a safe holiday weekend. 
Why be so nasty? sm
I mean really.  Why is that necessary?  Why?  Can you tell me? Is it something you can't help.  I have been civil the entire time I have posted here.  When I go to school, one person, ME, will not be posting. I can't speak for the rest.   So let it go.  Take a deep breath, let it out.  Let it go.  Let all that anger go.  You will feel better.
Nasty. (nm)
nm
no need to get nasty as the same could be said about you.
,
wow - sam -- you really do get nasty

I don't know about you, but I'm American, not dem or pub, just American.  I refuse to shut up or put up, as you so kindly put it, about anything.  I have to admit the last election I voted pub, and I'm still paying for that one.  But seriously sam, keep playing the blame game.  You'd make a good politician.  See where it gets us. 


Fact is 140 dems did vote to pass it, while only 65 pubs voted for it.  Maybe because the pubs didn't feel they were getting enough out of it for themselves or because of fear of its failure.  It's a shame that pubs can't even support their own party, ie Bush, who wanted this to pass.


cause you are nasty
You were so nasty in your first post. I was answering questions to someone who asked about my faith and you come bouncing in with h*ll fire and damnation. I don't believe in heaven or h*ll, so I'm not real worried about it. Give your prayers to someone else. I certainly don't need someone as hateful as you praying for me. I don't believe what is in the NT and you screaming about it isn't going to change that. I bet you are the top evangelizer at your church, aren't you?

Why do you believe the KJV is right? Do you know the history of it? Have you studied original texts? Probably not ...
why be so nasty?
What's your point? If you didn't like it, no need to read it, but why be nasty for the sake of being nasty?
Why do you have to be so nasty
and stoop to attacking people? Attack the politician if you like, but this is just so juvenile.
And it's still nasty (nm)
n
My my - how nasty can you get
Very I see.
I took a class
I took the NRA class, but I haven't gotten up the nerve to buy the gun.
Still low class
But would expect nothing less.
Welcome to the Class War,
Companies that take advantage of the provisions of the tax laws are not "tax cheats", by the way. A very prominent Supreme Court justice once said that no one is obliged to pay one penny more in taxes than the law requires.
Sorry, he has no class
Sorry, he has no class and neither does she. They are a couple of scam artists. They got where they got by scamming people into believing something that is not true. And race had a big play in it. People felt threatened...remember the panthers standing in front of the voting areas with clubs, and remember when people said they didn't like his policy about this, or his plan about that and they were shouted back with "your a racist". Then there was the oh so lovely (NOT) Garafool gal that when people were trying to stand up at the tea parties because we were tired of being taxed to death she called them all racists. There was just so much wrong with what has happened. However, back to the point - he has no class. He's a smooth talker and struts across the stage. Sure he may move gracefully and has a pleasant speaking voice, but I don't equate that with having class.

I know about his history, how he was raised, where he has been, his associations, how he got as far as he has today, and what he plans to do to our country. It's all been one huge scam and we the people have been duped.

Compared to the last president...sure he has class, but taken on an individual basis he has no class, and if I see that evil creepy grin he has one more time I feel like I will just throw up.
Your above post is very nasty....
Calling democrats "traitorcrats." 
Nasty response, I see.
You became nasty.  Too bad.  Guess you couldn't help yourself and couldn't stay reasonable and even-handed for more than a post or two. I was starting to think I'd been too hard with my thinking that some of the conservative posters were...well...kind of mean-spirited.  Apparently I was wrong.
Dang you are nasty.

read ur post again.  U R talking about it like its true.  Maybe U can't see it but i can.


I did read it. No need to be nasty.
I have tried to keep an even tone here. That wasn't necessary. I think it stands to reason when you get men like Jong and the leader of Iran who have openly said they wish for our death, that the next step would be nuclear weapons. 
Oh, got your hackles up I see. Nasty
I am not making excuses for anyone. Clinton and his presidency with all the bull is over. I know it, he knows it. You know it. Get over it already. He is washed up and has little to no credibility left. Don't mean jack to me right now. Others get away with far more in our justice system every day. I am not defending them either, it's just the way it goes. Am I going to cripple myself because of it? No way.

I could say the same for you in the predictability arena. You've reduced yourself to being flippant once again. You get downright nasty. Morals my foot.

It is not just about the Plame case. It is much bigger and wider, and it is growing every day.

Here is a part of it:
http://www.nlg.org/convention/2007%20Resolutions/Impeachment%20resolution.pdf

This was put together by the National Lawyers Guild. It is just one of many. It will get to the point where it can't be ignored. I can send you batches more if you like.
Nasty and proud of it.....obviously. And...
definitely not someone who should be calling someone else ignorant. But, since your opinion means les than nothing to me...knock yourself out.
Vicious and Nasty

Just vote early and get over yourselves.  Unbelievable.


But you are beyond nasty to anyone who disagrees.
in your posts.


You cannot even practice what you preach, the happy, joyous hopeful part.


Just downright nastiness is your party line.




The nasty thing

is your wishing misery on fellow Americans because you have your nose in a snit (or something darker and moister).


 


nasty on all sides
Can't we just state our opinions without calling each other "idiots" and "children?"  Does that really enhance the argument?  Ever?
wow, nasty this morning,,,

in our area there are people struggling but not to the extent that seem to be here on this board every day. Certainly don't live in a glass house; have struggled before in the past and have figured out a way not to. We are in a fortunate situation at the moment and have taken steps to ensure that we will be okay financially should the rug be pulled out from under us; so be it if that is considered snooty. Bash away as is your style; it humors me.


Boy, sis, you have a really nasty 'tude there...
my world is anything but gloomy. I know I am not responsible for that fella in the White House. That lets me sleep nights. Much Palin's carpet? Change parties? If you read any of my posts as you claim you have, either you have no retention or you would know I have never been a "pub" or a "Dem." Independent from day one. Conservative, yes definitely; "pub" no. Democrat...no way,not ever in this lifetime. The Democrats of my parents' days and Zell Miller are gone forever it would seem, and too bad. Too darned bad.

Yeah, it breaks my heart (not) that you are unimpressed. I know what impresses you and that is sure not where I desire to be.

It does not take a prophet to see where this is going. However...one has to remnove the blinders...ahem.
Just what was his nasty behavior?
I'm curious...........
You have so much class, reveille...
really, so much class. You could not debate an issue if your life depended upon it. Let us hope that it never does.
The LADY has class.
nm
Pure Class.

Adults acting like children once again.  Proves my point every time.