what a bunch of negative
Posted By: stumpgrinder on 2008-12-04
In Reply to: You are serious? I cannot stand the man. Used to - watch him. He is an embarrassment.nm
nellies. Why even bother getting up in the morning with that burden of resentment on your shoulders?
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 don't see it as a negative. SM
As a matter of fact, it was a case he was assigned when he was in a law firm and his law firm, from what I understand, took pro bono cases from time to time.
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Judge Roberts's involvement was minimal. "As in any other case," Ms. Healy said, "it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions."
Don't get too excited. In any case, I don't really care.
okay, not only negative but arrogant!
A bit of humility would be in order.
Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person. - Mark Twain
cant prove a negative
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS
Obama has had 61% of his ads negative throughout his ENTIRE campaign........... McCain only for one week.
Obama spent 47 million on negative ads.....McCain 27 million.
Yea, poor 'ole Obama....... just keeping believing in this guy. He'll sell you to the middle east and you'll be feeding their camels.
Funny. I think CNN is negative.
x
Ever try to prove a negative?
The government can ''guestimate'' a number and send you a bill for what you ''owe''. Then I guess it's up to you to prove they're wrong? Not an enviable position to be in.
You are the most unhappy, negative person I have ever seen! nm
You are such a negative person - I saw your other posts.
So hmmmmmm
Iim ignoring all the negative dem psychobabble....
...doesn't change anything for me.
Sam = I'm ready for her to hit a home run tonight. It's the most important speech of her life. Can hardly wait....
Watched Romney talk earlier today, and he is such a class act. Looking forward to his speech tonight, too.
and to anyone thinking it....no, I won't read any negative posts after mine, so don't bother....
One BIG difference....O's negative campaign
the SCARIEST notion of all...4 more years of 90%. He has not engaged in character assassination. He has criticized McC's policies, which is what ANY candidate from ANY party is entitled to do.
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.
For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
I agree totally with you. A very negative message. nm
.
I find it interesting that anything negative about Obama is
desperate and anything negative about McCain is truth--yet you call McCain supporters hyprocrites.
By my read, not a single negative response among them.
x
Obama's Approval Index hits negative territory
The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it.
Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish) has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven. May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo.
sorry bunch of
comments. nit pickers unite!!
Bunch of wussies
Which is why we are where we are right now..We are pansies, wussies. We dont take a stand, we are wishy washy. I am just acting like a republican and striking back and using the good old smear campaign that republicans have perfected. You continue to be quiet, mild mannered and you will get no where in today's politics. Hate?? Nah. I hate no one. Im just playing the same game the republicans are playing. What is good for one is good for the other..I think it is fun watching the lying opposition squirm, makes me smile.
Boy that's a whole bunch of people.
Please provide evidence that backs up your claim that liberals always, always utilize name-calling. Not sure exactly how many million people that it just in the U.S. Does this also include Europeans, etc.? Please share where you got this information. Seems like kind of a ridiculous claim, but that's just my opinion.
What a bunch of prudes.
besides that, I think the whole nation is due for a HUGE party after having endured 8 years of W and a perfectly wretched presidential campaign. An exciting celebration is just what the doctor ordered in the midst of a collapsing economy, the post dismal holiday blues and unemployment/food stamp and jobless rates at highest in decades. What would you have them do? Sit around reviewing their shrinking 401Ks or file their taxes perhaps? Sheesh. Lighten up, will ya?
what a bunch of hicks
Watch CNBC for the rest of the week 24/7 and then vote.
What a bunch of losers.
lawsuit after lawsuit and NOW we have Obama being portrayed as having quadruple citizenship. Do you hear yourselves? Preposterous. Ridiculous. Stupid. Full of all kinds of phoney outrage. For crying out loud, get over yourselves.
Along with a bunch of Republicans
banks by tens of billions of dollars.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090206/Bailout.Oversight/
What a bunch of Pelosi!!!
In other words...what a bunch of bu!!sh!t.
GOP, bunch of liars and criminals
The GOP's Spreading Plague
By Joe Conason
Salon.com
Friday 30 September 2005
Voters are notoriously slow in voting out politicians accused of corruption, but they may reach the tipping point with the latest revelations.
To be an honest Republican these days must be to wonder what awful revelation is coming next - and how the Grand Old Party, which once claimed to represent political reform, became a front for sleaze, corruption and cynical criminality. Across the country, from the Capitol to statehouses, Republican officials are under indictment, under investigation or under suspicion.
This week's headlines featured the indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay and the probe of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, but the infection of venality among their fellow partisans is now reaching epidemic proportions. So widespread is the plague that keeping track of all the individual cases, and their increasingly baroque variations, has become a distinct challenge.
Consider Jack Abramoff, once the prince of K Street lobbyists and a dedicated right-wing ideologue who boasted of his powerful connections to DeLay, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and the entire Republican apparatus in Washington. Already under investigation by the Justice Department for his influence peddling among House members, including DeLay, and his swindling of Indian tribes, Abramoff was indicted last month for bank fraud in a separate South Florida case involving a casino boat company that he partly owned.
The fraud allegedly committed by Abramoff and his business partner Adam Kidan involved a phony wire transfer they used to purchase a controlling interest in SunCruz from the company's founder, Konstantinos Gus Boulis, in 2001.
Abramoff and Kidan later fell out with Boulis in a bitter business dispute that turned violent. In February 2001, gunmen ambushed Boulis on a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., highway and shot him repeatedly. On Tuesday, Florida authorities arrested three New York men with mob connections for the Boulis killing. Two of the men - Anthony Moscatiello and Tony Ferrari - had received payments totaling more than $240,000 from Kidan and Abramoff. Moscatiello, a longtime associate of the Gambino Mafia family, and Ferrari were supposedly providing food and consulting services to SunCruz - or so Kidan claimed when questioned by prosecutors. There is no evidence, however, that Moscatiello and Ferrari provided any services to the company.
Connecting the dots isn't difficult here: Kidan and Abramoff want to get rid of Boulis, who won't go away. Kidan and Abramoff hire Moscatiello and Ferrari with SunCruz money. Moscatiello and Ferrari allegedly whack Boulis, without any motive of their own. If the Broward County state's attorney has sufficient evidence to win convictions for a capital crime, some people will probably be talking soon in hope of avoiding the hot shot.
The stunning fall of Abramoff, who has yet to hit bottom, is certainly the most colorful tale of Republican depravity. The corporate money laundering to Texas politicians that led to DeLay's conspiracy indictment, and the suspicious insider stock transaction that spurred investigations of Frist by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, seem mundane by comparison. Outrage will be warranted if their misconduct is proved, but everyone sadly knows that these felonies are now common practice in our political and corporate culture.
Corporate misbehavior has also brought down right-wing publisher Conrad Black, neoconservative strategist and former Bush advisor Richard Perle and the entire corporate board of Hollinger Inc., the Republican-friendly media conglomerate formerly controlled by Lord Black - and that he and others are plausibly accused of illicitly looting for their own benefit. Furious shareholders forced Black to relinquish control of the company and are suing him, as well as Perle and former Black deputy David Radler, for $500 million. The SEC is also suing Black and Radler, and the Justice Department is investigating the former Hollinger directors.
Last month, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who also happens to be the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case, accepted Radler's guilty plea to mail fraud and wire fraud. Radler is now believed to be cooperating in the prosecution of what former SEC chairman Richard Breeden, a Republican who investigated Hollinger on behalf of shareholders, termed a corporate kleptocracy.
Kleptocratic morality evidently ruled at least two Republican statehouses in the Midwest as well. Currently under indictment are former Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, whose trial on bribery charges began last week, and Gov. Robert Taft of Ohio, who pleaded no contest last month to charges of accepting illegal gifts from a state contractor.
That contractor is Thomas Noe, a coin dealer who received lucrative investment deals with the state's Workers Compensation Fund and is now at the center of a gigantic scandal known as Coingate. More than $12 million has disappeared from the fund, and former GOP official Noe stands accused of laundering money to various Republican politicians, including the Bush-Cheney campaign. Like Abramoff, Noe is a Bush Pioneer, responsible for raising at least $100,000 for the president last year.
Still another Pioneer is currently under criminal investigation in a celebrated corruption case involving Randy Duke Cunningham, a prominent Republican representative from San Diego with a senior position on the House defense appropriations subcommittee. On Aug. 18, FBI and IRS agents raided the offices of defense contractor and Bush fundraiser Brent Wilkes.
Wilkes is reportedly a former business associate of Mitchell J. Wade, the head of a defense contracting firm called MZM Inc. who is under investigation in San Diego for alleged bribery of Cunningham. According to newspaper reports, Wade purchased a home owned by Cunningham at a price inflated by at least $700,000, and also permitted the congressman to use his 42-foot yacht free of charge. Federal agents searched Wade's offices in July.
Although prosecutors have brought no criminal charges in the case yet, they have filed civil court documents describing the home sale as a violation of federal bribery laws - and Cunningham, who has served in Congress for decades, has already announced that he will not seek another term next year.
The Republican National Committee's new treasurer, Robert Kjellander, is under investigation too. (Naturally, he is also a Bush Pioneer.) Not long after he assumed his new post at the party's Washington headquarters, Kjellander received a federal subpoena for records of his dealings with the Illinois Teachers' Retirement System, a state pension fund, and the Carlyle Group. Federal prosecutors are reportedly looking into alleged corruption at the fund, and have asked Kjellander to provide information about a $4.5 million fee he received from Carlyle for his role in arranging investments by the fund with the huge private equity fund. Carlyle, of course, is closely connected to the Bush administration, including the president's father, George H.W. Bush, who has worked for the firm as a rainmaker and advisor.
In fairness, it should be said that all these pols and parasites may be innocent (except for those already convicted), or at least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also true that voters have historically been slow to evict politicians from office because of corruption charges.
But public opinion of congressional Republicans is hitting new lows, and Americans are growing furious about the war in Iraq, the government response to Hurricane Katrina and rising energy prices. The natural impulse to throw the rascals out can only be encouraged by the Gilded Age spectacles now unfolding in Washington and in cities across the country as the indictments continue to come down between now and November 2006.
Joe Conason writes a weekly column for Salon and the New York Observer.
Is this what it has come to, a bunch of draft dodging, sm
stay-at-home politicians calling decorated war veterans cowards. They have their nerve.
I have been out of the loop lately with politics, but this tops all.
Well you had to know the threats were coming next from this bunch..nm
They are a scary bunch aren't they?sm
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” –Thomas Jefferson
looks like a bunch of sheep to me living in USA..sm
hmmmmm....? Just because everyone is voting for Barack doesn't make any of it right - they all are bad candidates to some of us......
blechhhhhhhhhhhhh
JMO.........no flames required......
Yes. We are all a bunch of stupid wretches
x
I just got off that site after reading a bunch
of questions. Some are inappropriate as:"Why does your wife look so miserable all the time." This has nothing to do with serious questions. There was also one on there about somebody losing their labradoodle and what was he going to do about it. Others are down right nasty. I call that abuse.
Some people are just plain nuts. There are over 11,700 questions listed on there and I think I only got to read around 300. Most that I read were appropriate and relate to questions on what he was planning to do.
Now, before you scream at me, I didn't vote for him, I'm definitely not a fan of his, but I'm willing to watch and see what happens and give an opinion or two once in a while....and that's all it is, an opinion, like everyone else on this board are allowed.
I love it! Bunch of bums. NM
Yeah, thanks a bunch for posting....sm
Even though most of the "blame" can be contributed to the dems through the years, repubs are, in part, also to blame, for not sticking to their guns.
Sam has been posting this stuff for weeks, and I don't care if she does paraphrase what she reads, because she makes it easy to understand too.
Anyways, this guy is spot on for his short in a nutshell review, too. Really liked his website.
I think we should be glad the bill didn't pass. It still had a bunch of crap in it. Maybe they'll get it right this next time.
I'm thinking of buying a bunch of really mean -
pitbulls, and teaching them to seek and destroy wall street CEO's.
Yep, but you won't get the bunch of blind eyes on
xx
I want facts, not a bunch of mumbogumbo.
x
Can we avoid lumping everyone into one bunch?
I'm a liberal and I have to say, I really resent it when people say the libs this or the dem's that and refer to all of us in one great big bunch that worships Obama and thinks he's the messiah. It really bugs the crap out of me. He's a man. He's not my Savior.
I have seen condescension and name calling from BOTH sides of the fence, none of which is appropriate coming from anyone who calls themself an adult. I do find it interesting that it seems to be much more accepted in this election cycle than in years before. I don't know if it's because of the proliferation of message boards and the complete lack of humanity that tends to go with posting on them, or if it's this particular year and set of candidates/winners.
Let's give the man a chance. Yes, he's a man. I believe he is a very smart man and I have high hopes for him. Let's avoid name calling, liberal bashing, conservative hate, etc. That just does everyone a disservice.
Pelosi, O and the bunch don't have the balls to do it...nm
//
Low class for that bunch ain't news to me.....
@@
I saw it too. What a bunch of brainless blabber.
Ultra-left garafabarf skank.
their deeds won't be lost....they get a bunch of
nm
Agree. what a bunch of garbage.
nm
This is the biggest bunch of bunk and lies
I've ever read. It's just hilarious how far people will go to try and discredit the very successful Limbaugh. Predictable drivel from the liberal press.
The saying, 'a few bad apples spoil the bunch' is true...sm
I think the loose recruiting tactics to beef of the military that is what is causing these chain of events. My question is how can America screen soldiers to prevent stuff like this?
And to take away their immunity is just as scary to me. There's no time like the present to start unhooking the training wheels.
I find it amusing how a bunch of MTs sitting
around in their robes typing all day have suddenly become the political pundits of the world, interjecting their wisdom (often found on the internet) and view points with such ferociousness. Alert the media! These women are a force to be reckoned with!
You anti-choice people are a bunch of
Get a life, and keep your hands of my body, and every one else's who doesn't happen to agree with you. If you don't like a woman's freedom to choose, then don't choose it yourself. But you sure as he11 aren't going to tell me or anyone else what to do.
I would rather send a bunch of brown envelopes..
against people like you showing how full of (insert word here) you are.
No, the big-money bunch in Orange County had
because they PAY him to.
Yep, remember him calling us a bunch of old cronies?
Back a while he said he was wasting his time on us "old cronies" If that's not mysoginistic (not to say incredily condescending), I don't know what is.
That's okay, though, TS likes himself enough to make up for all of us who don't.
Wrongo, just-the-bad-breath. I've seen it and I do know a bunch of
We have no time to be wasting on these ridiculous notions.
And this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with whether or not you have one iota of common sense, and it's becoming more evident by the day that you don't.
Geez. This has to be the most sour, unhappy bunch of people I have ever...
seen. sigh.
|
