your nasty posts speak for your state of mind
Posted By: sally on 2008-09-06
In Reply to: Sally, you really are a mean person. - You might want to find a pill to take. nm
And, unfortunately, most mentally ill do not realize they are ill. I hope you have a supportive family. Or at least a couple cats.
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
I speak English very well thank you, and the nasty little remark you made
regarding the usage of 'ebonics' and other insulting comments you have made is totally unwarranted and again a cowardly and racist stereotype you do not seem to have a problem posting on this board. You have repeatedly insulted many who post on this board with your racist bigoted rants and it is sickening. Yes, I am a black woman but more importantly I am an American and ALL people matter to me, regardless of party lines or color - not just a select few because we are all in this TOGETHER. But I am glad you have exposed yourself regarding your thoughts - just proves to many here that your bigotry, predjudice and hatred of people different from you definitely casts you in a light that is not flattering at all.
I speak English very well thank you, and the nasty little remark you made
regarding the usage of 'ebonics' and other insulting comments you have made is totally unwarranted and again a cowardly and racist stereotype you do not seem to have a problem posting on this board. You have repeatedly insulted many who post on this board with your racist bigoted rants and it is sickening. Yes, I am a black woman but more importantly I am an American and ALL people matter to me, regardless of party lines or color - not just a select few because we are all in this TOGETHER. But I am glad you have exposed yourself regarding your thoughts - just proves to many here that your bigotry, predjudice and hatred of people different from you definitely casts you in a light that is not flattering at all.
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.
What a nasty little leftie you are. That isn't a fact, gt, it's a figment of your mind.
Funny how you can bring up something that happened to Laura Bush from years ago and post old Barbara Bush comments, but when someone else does it, it's old news. And notice, not one time have any of us called you a name. Not once have we attacked you personally.
yes, you are free to speak your mind
But, understand that not all Christians hold the same beliefs as you. You are free to give your opinion and your beliefs, but expect others to be free to do the same.
A lot of Christians are left of center and don't believe in some of the hate spewed my the extreme right Christians. Jesus didn't preach hate and he didn't preach oppression. He preached love and loving your neighbor as the most important commandment. You will win more supporters with love . . .
You do not speak for anyone here. There was nothing wrong with her posts. They were honest.nm
12
And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.
SHE'S anger? Take a look at your posts. Hateful, nasty, full of sick glee for other humans beings
x
Never mind, the no name posts explain it. You're just here to take a DUMP on the libs...nm
x
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION! CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
Posts were removed due to the nastiness. Play nice and posts won't get deleted.
I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
I don't know what state you live in but in my state
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
She also posts regularly here. Who are you to say where she posts? nm
//
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.
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...........
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!!
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.
Her post wasn't nasty at all!
I think it could have been much worse! I think she was being rather nice about the whole thing! Get over it!
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.
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!!!=)
What do you find viscious and nasty?
xx
|