Her post wasn't nasty at all!
Posted By: mt on 2008-09-12
In Reply to: Haha, these aggressive posts are too funny... - MTPockets
I think it could have been much worse! I think she was being rather nice about the whole thing! Get over it!
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
It wasn't unnecessarily nasty. (sm)
Do you deny that there are liberals out there that are like that? I know there are conservatives who are going to be setting off the "crap-o-meter" every time Obama takes a breath. But that doesn't mean I'm one of them.
There are liberals that have taken way too much time out of their lives in the last eight years to bash Bush just because and unfortunately, they have been the loud ones. That doesn't mean that all liberals are like that.
If you know that's not you he's describing, why take offense? Every post on here that starts out something like "you pubs..." doesn't offend me because I know I'm not like the offensive pubs out there - you know, the ones making all the noise?
Just take it all with a grain of salt and don't let it ruin your day.
Keep smiling - people will wonder what you're up to!!!=)
More nasty comments. I can see why your were invited back...there wasn't enough crudeness
More vomiting of your inner rage. I see on the conservative board you also say liberals are sissies. Could you please provide the source of the research behind this statement? Or, could it possibly be.....more lies?
I wasn't being nasty. The issue is why Iran has a nuclear program.
They have stated repeatedly it is for energy.
I have a real difficult time knowing who to believe. Bush has paid the media to present his point of view. This tactic used to be called propaganda when it referred to Communists. Communists were supposed to be the ones who wanted to take over the entire world and force their form of government on everyone.
Today it's America doing the very same thing.
It's not difficult to find an ever growing list of Bush lies.
If you can provide me with a similar list of lies told by Ahmadinejad, I'd love to read it.
The issue here is credibility and who has the biggest history of lying. Unfortunately, a pack of lies is what got us where we are in Iraq today. To me, it looks like Bush is trying the very same tactics to get us into a war with Iran.
Although Ahmadinejad is a terrible, psychotic, murderous, dangerous individual, Bush is the person who has the five-year history of lying to the American people and to the world.
Quite frankly, if I were the president of Iran and saw my neighbor, Iraq, invaded based on a pack of lies, I believe I'd want to flex my muscles and try to scare the USA into backing off and not attacking my citizens as they did in Iraq.
Israel has nuclear weapons (that I believe WE paid for). The USA has nuclear weapons. Why is that okay?
The real threat is Korea, but Bush is too much of a coward and doesn't have the courage to address that threat.
The propaganda machine of George W. Bush has cast Syria in a very negative light, yet Syria was responsible for saving American lives the other day by thwarting a terror attempt.
That, in and of itself, in addition to Bush's refusal to get the Taliban that were in plain view the other day, has me questioning every single word that comes out of this lying president's mouth.
Yes, I'll say it again. He is a liar. A LIAR! Maybe in your neck of the woods, lying is an accepted form of communication. Where I come from, it does nothing but destroy credibility and create distrust in the person who is doing the lying. You can respond with all the snappy **you hate bush** and **you're on the side of the terrorists** comebacks you want (seems to be the usual conservative talking point response), but the bottom line is he is a chronic liar. I don't hate Bush, but I sure as heck don't like (or trust) liars.
Your above post is very nasty....
Calling democrats "traitorcrats."
Anyone who would post rumors that are mean and nasty...
concerning a 16-year-old girl are mean-spirited. The dailykos is a swamp with no bottom, as someone so astutely said, and there are those here who prefer to wallow in it. So be it.
Sticks and stones, sticks and stones. And as to go away...you first.
why dont you get a clue before you post nasty things
I have a mixed family and a BLACK boyfriend not that is any of your business
so i have plenty of knowledge in what the girls think of me
not just black girls but ALL Girls.
including you apparently.
how was i spewing race hatred? why dont you read ALL MY POSTS about the one i just wrote about atlanta?
god you people make me SICKKKKKK
im so used to jealousy it just slides off my back!!!
Her post wasn't about the war, HELLO!!! sm
It isn't even about politics, old one groove record brain! It's about supporting the troops, which you pretend to do but you obviously DON'T.
And the other post wasn't? Sorry....
I don't agree.
My post above wasn't about either party, it was
Do you ever take those blinders off for even a moment?
I said nothing against O, and I said nothing against M. I said "The Debates need to begin. NOW". That's all I said. So please direct the barbs elsewhere. This was a bi-partisan remark, nothing more.
Yes, but the post still wasn't about the clothes
nm
Wasn't responding to your post.... but the sow's ear
--
The post about oatmeal wasn't made by MM. sm
It was made by Allahpundit on Hot Air, which is a website MM started.
it wasn't held back. See post below
nm
I wasn't referring to you as the "pot" it should have been under the gourd's post
x
McCain wasn't desperate and wasn't behind in the polls
In fact, they have been neck and and neck, and McCain has been gaining in the polls while Obama has been slipping. McCain could have taken the easy way and kept the stable course and picked safer, sure. Instead, he picked a maverick leader like himself, who isn't afraid to get in there and make changes even if it goes against their own party. I believe he wanted to say that the Republicans are the party for change, and wanted to make a bold statement. I've seen statements at "other sites" as well where people are absolutely joyous at this pick.
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.
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...........
No, she is sounding very rational and not nasty at all, but once again
the mighty mouth gt shoots another poster down! Wow, that's gotta feel good, huh? Just vomit those words out there without thought. I read all the posts by AR. Other than Suzie and at one time Lurker they are the most rational posts on either board I have ever seen. Hey gt, little bitty clue, it all really is not about YOU. And as far as getting a life, you practically LIVE on this board. Just look down it and go a couple pages back. POT KETTLE BLACK.
No gt you're never hateful or nasty
don't stand in an open field during a thunderstorm.
Well, that's nasty propaganda at work...
...and they use it because it *does* work, unfortunately.
But hey - Jesus and his closest followers were never a majority of anything. They weren't the powerful, or those in control of the Temple, or those who lived in luxury in the lap of Rome. Those who were in control hated them and considered them pesky liberals. So I guess Democratic Christians stand in pretty good historical company.
You're particularly nasty today
I don't think a liberal has lost an election anywhere today, so what's the the nastiness?
HRC supporters downright nasty
Watched some of the DNC hearing (or whatever it was called). I was utterly disgusted with the supporters of HRC. She said she wanted the delegates seated. Well they are going to be seated! So what's the problem now? Oh - I get it, they want everything and they want it their way or no way. They just want to be placed in the position whether or not they got more votes. They are not playing fair. First they want the delegates seated - they are. They want their votes to count - they are. But because HRC does not get every single vote and Barack with none they are going to keep pushin it. You want to talk about just looking like a bunch of spoiled losers that is surely what they are. And what are they screaming about. As some lady said "a black man came and took it away from HRC". Well boo hoo. You want to talk about downright biggots - there you go! First you have the comments about Jesse Jackson by Billy boy, then you've got the "I'll win because white working people will vote for me and not a black man" statement by HRC. I'm tellin ya, they are really gearing up for a racial war. She lost, fair and square. End of discussion! The media if anything always gave her the benefit of the doubt. Gave her the easy questions at the debate, and certainly favored her, but now its just obvious she is a spoiled sport and sore loser. Well for all the ones who say they'll never vote for a black man, there are a hundred more who will not vote for that woman. Sure we'll one day vote in a woman in the white house but not her! I know there were many other qualified women who should have run. Why didn't they? Seems like the Clintons once again pulled "something funny" so she would be placed in there. Anyway...that's my rant for the evening. She just disgusts me and a lot of people I know and we are all anxious for her to just go home. Sure, go ahead, take it to the convention, but she better be prepared for the outcome. She lost, fair and square. More people and more delegates voted for Obama. Someone needs to set her figures straight. I guess if you don't count a bunch of states that Obama won then she can say she won, but I know she'd have a fit if Obama left out some of the states she won and said "See I won, we just won't count New York, Ohio and Calfornia (or any other combination of states she won). You want to talk about disenfranchizing people. She's just coming right out and saying "oh this states is important because I won so we have to count their votes, but this state over here that Obama won in, those people are not important, their votes don't count". Like I've said before....HRC go back to living under that rock you crawled out from. We're sick of you.
Here is one of those nasty four-letter words for you....
FACT...it was not the Republican Party who made it the thing to do to outsource to India...that was YOUR party. Here you go:
When Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the senatorial ring in 1999, one Sikh donor with business interests in India enriched her to the tune of $50 thousand-and she enriched him with access. The Sikh is a millionaire whose circumstances suggest may be living on “borrowed” wealth. The man is hotel-restaurant mogel Sant Singh Chatwal. Chatwal a naturalized citizen from India who initially raised $500 thousand for Clinton in a fundraiser in his Upper Eastside penthouse. Chatwal reportedly committed 14 entities controlled by him to donate $210 thousand of that amount to Hillary’s first campaign for the US Senate. Not in the least surprising is the fact that Chatwal is also a key Trustee of the William J. Clinton Foundation.
Chatwal, a US tax deadbeat since at least 1996 (and a debt deadbeat before that) began donating to Bill and Hillary Clinton early in the Clinton years. The Clintons reciprocated (that old political quid pro quo) by approving grants to Indian-American advocacy groups that were used to finance the outsourcing of jobs from the United States to India. Beginning in 1996 Cisco Systems (another major Clinton donor) began laying off $60 thousand-plus high tech employees and replacing them with new hires from Bangalore, India for about half the dollars. Cisco Systems justified the hirings, claiming they could not find qualified employees in the United States. By 1998 Cisco had only a handful of Infosys Technology workers overseas (Infosys is an outsourcer of jobs to India). Most of their 850 employees are now Indian. (Infosys has just launched an IT subsidiary in Monterray, Mexico to outsource outsourced jobs from India to Mexico.) In 2006 Newsweek reported that Cisco System’s R&D facility-employing 3,000 people, would be located in India. (Bill Clinton received $300 thousand from Cisco in 2006 for two speeches at $150 thousand per speech. Cisco employees-those who still had jobs-donated $39,450 to Hillary.)
Bill Clinton invested upwards of $50 thousand in an Indian bill paying company through his WJC Investments, LLP when outsourcing became a hot property. The company, Easy Bill Limited, is an Indian corporation. Easy Bill functions as a one-stop bill paying outlet for utility bills, credit card bills or any other debts you pay online. (It’s website, www.easybillindia.com (does not conceal from anyone interested in billing collection services that they are outsourcing to India).
In 2004 Congress-and several States-attempted to enact anti- outsourcing laws. In March, 2004 the Senate approved an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT] disallowing tax dollars from being used to facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs. A day earlier, Congressman Bernie Sanders [I-VT] (now one of Vermont’s two US Senators) introduced a bill that would deny grants or loans to any company that outsourced jobs if they laid off workers in the United States to a greater level than layoffs of employees in any other country in the world. Several industrial States attempted to enact anti-outsourcing laws that year, but those bills either failed and were defanged before passage.
As pressure mounted to kill outsourcing, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Chuck Schumer were instrumental in creating the Senate India Caucus (which was “coordinated” by the US India Political Action committee) to lobby Senators who were attempting to derail job outsourcing. When the Caucus was formed, Hillary Clinton told Roll Call that “…[i]t is imperative that the United States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences.” With their money in her pocket, what else could she say? Hillary is a co-chairman of the Caucus. On the House side, Hillary’s allies are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Joe Crowley [D-NY]. (If your job has been outsourced, you now know who to thank.)
Yes, this is an article, but you can confirm every bit of it on line if you are inclined to do so. You are so driven by your hatred of Republicans that you would vote for the YOUR party, the party who instigated outsourcing to India. So you have THEM to thank for outsourcing your profession overseas and driving your wages into the ground.
Not being nasty - it's true. Her and Rush like their
saying something you think is incorrect. The FACT is --- she's a druggie!!
You refer to being nasty, yet you state...
"I could give a flying crap." Personally, I find that offensive and feel that you are a big part of the problem.
I caught the nasty racist
little dig there. I got that you were saying that Obama is ahead but his being black will doom him. I didn't miss your sneaky way of signalling your fellow Rothschilds.
What do you find viscious and nasty?
xx
what a nasty comment - see message
We could say the same thing about the dems. Seems to me the dems have done enough damage. Go home and quit screwing up our system. It's the same ol retoric by the nasty dems. The pitiful thing is you don't even see it. O says jump off the bridge and the O lovers follow without question.
America is a Republic. There is a very good reason our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and a very good reason the Declaration of Independence and constituion do not even mention the word democracy.
Yet another nasty comment by a liberal
This comment was so mean-spirited and unecessary.
So far:
4 Nasty hate-filled comments by liberals.
0 by conservatives.
Yet another nasty comment by a liberal
This comment was so mean-spirited and unecessary. Your up another point by your nasty comments
So far:
5 Nasty hate-filled comments by liberals.
0 by conservatives.
Time will tell on the election - besides you were nasty first.
x
|
