I think Dr. Phil is kind of a bully.
Posted By: JMO on 2009-01-23
In Reply to: That's funny - on Dr. Phil? - Zville MT
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
"Sam-I-Am" is most definitely a bully.
nm
I will stick up for Sam, too. -not a bully.
nm
Thank you, Dr. Phil. :-) nm
nm
Who said anything about Dr. Phil?
For starters, I did not author the original "classical psychopath" post, which Backwards Typist (BT) automatically assumed applied to her instead of the governor (who, by the way, IS a classic psychopath). But I did find the knee-jerk paranoid reaction rather intriguing, so I decided to respond, as is customary on this forum, while exercising 1st amendment rights.
Now here you come along to defend BT and, as is your usual style, you have conflated the situation way beyond the original context, to now include "whatever opinions expressed on this board that don't agree with" mine. Since I was not the original poster and my reply was a response to BT's own paranoid conclusion (and not an original premise of mine), the connections you are trying to make here are, shall we say, rather void of logic.
It does not take a Dr. Phil to look up a simple definition and apply it to a given context. There is nothing particularly judgmental in doing so, especially in light of the fact that I never claimed to be any sort of expert. It is merely an exercise in intellect and logic, concepts which, on more than one occasion, have seemed to cause you to go ballistic, as you are now demonstrating.
If you are so tired of my alleged "holier-than-thou" attitude (your perception, yet not my intent) and condescension, you could always opt to skip my posts and save yourself some aggravation, since you seem to think they are identifiable by my yellow-bellied choice to use sentence form in the name and subject box instead of the more "regular" habit of employing a consistent moniker. You seem to be pretty good at identifying your least favorite poster on this forum, despite the fact that I am not the only one who fails to meet your strict standards of always using a "regular name." I have my reasons for posting in this fashion, but do not necessarily feel compelled to defend or explain myself to you, other than to say that I've BTDT and did not enjoy being stalked by sam night and day for weeks on end when I did use a nick-name. I certainly do not think the tired, worn-out right-wing fringe mantra of "do you have something to hide?" merits further comment.
By the way, as long as we are nitpicking over apostrophe placement, you might want to run spell check on your posts next time, unless you think "been" is spelled "bene". Having a built-in editing tool comes in handy and only takes a few seconds. Wish we had that back in the dark ages in 1974 when I first started transcribing.
Things tend to get a bit murky at this point. When trying to admonish me for having a "lot of nerve speaking for anyone but" myself, you probably should eliminate the part where you are "so sure there are others" who think I am heavy-handed and rude, MS sm......m, or whatever your regular name is. I have no difficulty "owning" my opinions, but am not really interested in engaging with posters who use raw emotions and juvenile catch phrases as a substitute for thoughtful, well researched political debate. If you are ever in the mood to actually confront a real political issue head-on, back up claims with fact and express intelligent conclusions in place of whining, blowing things out of proportion and taking things WAY too personally, I would be more than happy to accommodate.
Well, thank you, Dr. Phil.........sm
Whatever opinions expressed on this board that don't agree with yours are now considered psychopathic and have markers of antisocial behavior and lack of conscience. What gives you the right to pass such judgment on anyone?
Personally, I am a little tired of your holier-than-thou attitude and condescending mannerisms that you have displayed consistently since you have bene posting here without having the intestinal fortitude to sign your posts with a consistent moniker. I'm sure there are others who think your brand of criticism is rather heavy-handed and rude. Now, let's (and it is spelled with an apostrophe, which you would know if you were an MT) think about what that says about your personality type.
Most regular posters on this board use a regular name in posting so we can tell who we are conversing with. You, on the other hand, choose not to. Do you have something to hide? Are you afraid to "own" your own opinions because subconsciously you know you are somehow deficient or inconsistent in your opinions and afraid that you will be called on it? You seem to gain a great deal of satisfaction in elevating yourself to a position of false piety and have no conscience in doing so. And don't bother saying that no sarcasm is intended because each and every one of your posts literally drip with sarcasm. You have a lot of nerve speaking for anyone but yourself.
Hey, Dr. Phil......(sm)
Not even close....LOL.
Perhaps the neighborhood bully syndrome?
And I hate to say it, but Bush is kind of the same kind of guy, only not as openly hateful and weird.
I don't know the final answer and as sassy as I get sometimes on this board, this deep divide kind of bothers me. I can't really get a handle on how folks can have such different opinions.
Then there's always the thought that this is just some nut posting on this board. Better they vent their rage here than be aggressive to someone in person.
Were you the bully in high school too?
nm
Describing Sam as "the pub bully" says all I need
nm
No the bully is a democrat who changes her name daily (sm)
but her style is so unmistakeable.
Like Dr. Phil Says...and it's true:
"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing." It matters not what y'all think of Dr. Phil.
If you had the truth on your side, wouldn't you produce it?
Enough said.
That's funny - on Dr. Phil?
You would think he would be able to help her!!! LOL!!!
At least you admit it. Schoolyard taunter, bully
all grown up. Every pack has a leader. You are the leader du jour.
The bully thing would argue in favor of
nm
Bully pack and gangs of pubs (GOP)
Losers on the board and losers in November.
The school yard bully/"I was here first" approach
is pretty juvenile, don't you think? Besides, it does not hold water. I hate to break this to you, but the Philistines showed up in the region around the same time that the Hebrews did, around the 12th century BC. The history of civilization did not ensue with the Biblical Hebrews and Palestinian presence predates your Moslem invasion era reference. In fact, since the habitation of the region predates recorded history by nearly a million years, there is no way you can gain any traction with that ridiculously juvenile line of thinking. There is no such thing as paleolithic, neolithic or chalcolithic squatters. So, you see, my view of history is not as short-sighted as yours, which does not go back quite far enough, unless you have some special license to begin it "whenever it suits your purpose."
In any case, that is why no viable debate can be had outside the context of modern (i.e., nationalist/political) times. Like I said before, please leave God out of the ungodly. The fact remains that the geographic regions populated by Philistines/Palestinians have stayed relatively intact under all sorts of invasions and occupations, including the Persians, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Roman, Byzantine, Arab Caliphates, including Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rule, the Crusades, Mamluk, Egyptian and Ottoman eras....all the way up until the Brits got their hands on it in 1917 and even beyond that for a few decades, until the Partition Plan was instituted. This represents approximately 3147 years of continuous residence. Your finder's keepers thingy applies to both the Hebrew Biblical era as well as modern day fascist Israel. Palestine does not belong to you. Never has. Never will.
Who failed to honor cease fire preconditions by failing to lift the blockade, braniac? Do not try to pretend we are talking about the red rivers of blood from (how few is it now?) the 9 (?) Israeli fatalities. Israel sits on top of generations of their very own road kill.
Thanks for posting about Phil Donahue. I have not followed him, except sm
way back when when he had his talk show I loved to watch.
I agree with you, the site posted does not prove he is an atheist. I would have to hear it from his mouth to believe it.
Phil Berg for Hillary?
Philip Berg is/was an avid Hillary Clinton supporter and filed his motions before the Democratic Convention, didn't he? Besides, the court has not made any demands on Obama to produce anything. He released his birth certificate and the Hawaiian birth announcement, nothing more is required.
Also if you check Obama's official website, you'll see that Michelle Obama has a busy campaigning schedule while her husband is in Hawaii. I don't know, but I don't think it's too strange to think that she may have felt it was important to continue campaigning during his absence at such a crucial time.
Oprah and Ellen, and Dr. Phil
are not in a position to force the rest of us to share our wealth, punish us if we do not, while keeping their wealth for themselves. Not a good comparison at all.
Oprah is on record saying that (even with her multi-millions) she does not just hand money to individuals who tell her they need it. Why should she think that would help someone who obviously failed to take care of their own money? They want money? They can go make it the hard way, as she has. (Then she supports Obama. Go figure!)
Obama is more like the minister who preaches fidelity, while having affairs with his parishioners. He's someone who says that to help public schools, all children should have to attend them (except his own.) Lectures on the evils of tobacco, raises taxes on it, while sneaking cigarettes. Gets his own sweet deal on a mortgage, supports the bailout of deadbeats, yet penalizes those who have been responsible with their money. Criticizes company executives for use of corporate jets, then flies on his own jet to Arizona just to sign a bill.
Get the picture? ''Do as I say, not as I do.''
This proves that Phil Berg is a hardhead who
twice failed legal action. So you still have presented nothing that back up your claim that this is still on the docket. By the way, ever heard of frivolous lawsuits. They are not confined to medical malpractice, dontcha know?
Did you ever wonder why most Democrats in politics don't embrace people like Phil.
or should I cally him Phillie. There are some far leftist Democrats that no Democrat worth their salt wants to be hooked up with. Phil is one of them. He has a long list of hates, some of which include cops. He hates them. If you remember his shows from eons ago, he had several shows about them. No politician worth his salt has someone like that on his ticket. Think about it. When was the last time you saw Phil with a politician?
Phil Donahue is the man. Had Bill O'Reilly shaking in his boots.nm
He makes good points and the only thing you get from his stance is that he doesn't want to fight the taliban, which is unfortunate for you NOT true.
Give a quote where he says the US should not fight the taliban.
Looks kind of pro-war to me.
Everything below is from their official, sanitized website, but for the real view of this group read their forum which includes lots of photos of firearms, many with children alongside them.
________________
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
(From the Mission portion of the website):
War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.
"
kind of OT
Do any of you watch Survivor? I love that show. I think Im in pretty good shape but there is no way I could survive for a month on an island like they do but I like to watch and make believe that I could (smile). Snakes and alligators and bugs..YIPES.
Seems kind of sad
Don't know who you are referring to but I suppose all countries have residents who don't wish it well but I assume that statistically they would be a very tiny minority as really, why would they live in a place they wish to see destroyed? Seems silly.
This country seems to be unable to educate itself about the nature of our foe. We rely on leaders who seem to flaunt their ignorance about the middle eastern culture. So perhaps you are right, there are those who wish us harm.....by utilizing repeatedly the same failed techniques/agendas that as you stated, continue to stoke the fires of hate that have been burning for a very very long time -- the agendas of ignorance and unwillingness to learn from history. As long as this runaway ignorance prevails our soldiers will continue to die along with the Iraqi civilians and our world will become less safe.
It is kind of sad, really....
As virulent a Bush hater and advocate for pulling out of Iraq immediately that Murtha is, for him to say what he said, and the fact that you don't give it a bit of creedence is a pretty sad thing, piglet. And you can bet if they had picked and chosen spots in Baghdad to show him, he would have been on the Senate floor saying so. He sure hasn't been shy about castigating and condemning to this point. You just absolutely are unwilling to accept ANYthing positive, even from a Bush-hating pull out of Iraq now Democrat. WOW. 
SM is kind of right
There is a world of heartache ahead in the very near future. In case you haven't been following the trend, there is one church that has been advising its members for over 100 years to stock pile food and supplies, be self-sufficient, and otherwise make nice with the world. The holocaust is coming, but there isn't going to be some saving-grace rapture first. The righteous people will collect into specific locations to survive while the unrighteous have a slug fest and kill each other off. Its very real and it is likely going to be within this lifetime.
that is kind of a
creepy thought for you to be fixated on. EEEWWW.
Kind of the same ol same ol
My understanding is if you used to be a Muslim and then change (or say you have changed for whatever reason) that is a big problem for them. I've known for a long time that OBL would put out threats and he has.
This goes to prove that he has more to worry about from the outside than within the US.
You are so so kind - thank you
Thank you for your post. I know what you mean about feeling stuck.
My dad. He lives in CT. He was working for Foxwoods Casino since the day it opened. When they were first talking about building the Casino back in 1986 (I think that was the year). He received a letter from the Indian tribe asking if he would like to be a poker dealer (they paid for training and meals). At that time he was unemployed and could not find work anywhere (he was in the Army during the Gulf War and when that ended the military "dumped" thousands and thousands of people and he found himself jobless, homeless, and hopeless. Then he received the letter and accepted and he was the third person to be hired to work at the Casino. While he worked there after he had an illness because he worked in an environment filled with cigarette smoke, so they transferred him to a department (marketing I believe) and he has worked there ever since. He loved his job sooooooo much. When I talked to him at Thanksgiving he said he was going to take a computer class (he said he doesn't even know what the on button looks like on a computer. HA HA.) He said he was learning the basics of email and stuff, but the last time I talked to my sis she said he tried checking his email from her computer but didn't know how to do it, so not sure how the computer class went.
I know he's working with some guy at the unemployment office, but my dad said he's going nuts not having a job to go to and spend the day at. He is checking the local stores (greeter, bagger, cashier or whatever they need). I'll check on the AARP program and send him some information. He's talking now about possibly having to sell his truck so he will have some money for food. I wish I could help him out more, but with one income we are barely making it ourselves, and my dad is a kind of proud person and not sure if he would accept any money from his kids.
He does tell me that we are at the bottom so it can only go up from here. Thank you very much for your suggestions and care.
Thank you for the kind words.
I agree with everything you said.
I think that lumping people together and making gross inaccurate generalizations does nothing but prevent any intelligent discourse from occurring, and that's very sad because these issues are very serious. Our very ability to keep BREATHING may be in jeopardy, particularly if we don't start concentrating on our own safety. Bush has made Iraq much less safe place to be, and he hasn't done much to make the United States a safe place to be. If we truly NEED our military someday to protect US in a homeland attack, where will they all be?
What also worries me is that our enemies might consider this a bilateral "religious" war. They already believe it is, yelling and effecting "Jihad." But the current focus on one particular brand of Christianity in this country -- not religion in general, but one particular BRAND of Christianity -- makes me wonder if Bush himself doesn't think this is a religious war. The fact that he might think so is what scares me the most, as history tell us they are the most deadly, bloody wars of all. I personally don't want the U.S. to be known as a "Christian" nation. One of the things I love the most about this country is the freedom that we're SUPPOSED to have to worship freely, and I will personally oppose anyone who tries to take that away from us.
It's sad that tolerance and respect aren't in more people's hearts and souls.
Thanks, that's kind of what I thought...
dede
I responsed in kind. NM
Kind of off topic
Do any of you ever watch subtitle South Korean shows? Out here in CA, we have a channel that is for mainly Indian/Asian shows and I gotta tell ya, I have gotten to like the South Korean mini series..they last about 18 shows, twice a week..They are so good and have made me understand the Asian culture so much..I have a Japanese friend and I was astonished when I went to her home, you take your shoes off and sit on the floor for eating, sleep on the floor..all the things I thought were in the past..Plus, a big bonus, at least I think so, Asian guys are so cute. Hey, conservatives, if you are gonna attack me for this post, save it..okay? IMO, learning about others will keep us alive and not bombing each other.
wow the holidays must not be kind to you
yikes
Yup....Nancy is one of a kind...
let us sincerely HOPE.
Ok, kind of understand now
Thanks for the article. I understand it a little better, but boy, can they make the process any more confusing? Seems like there could be an easier way to do politics.
Kind and gracious?
Let's see....how many thousands of innocent people died in Iraq? If that is your definition of kind and gracious, then you are disturbed.
Maybe the kind that has 3 kids
already and the 4th pregnancy could put her life in peril. Does she allow her other children to go motherless?
Maybe the kind who underwent extensive testing and was told that her child would be born limbless or so developmentally delayed that any kind of life would be miserable?
Maybe the kind who was raped and does not want to bear the child of a rapist, whether she would be able to put the child up for adoption or not.
A woman's body is her body. No one should have the right to tell her what to do with it. There are many reasons to have an abortion. I personally feel that in the above cases, an abortion is a reasonable option. I certainly wouldn't wish any of the scenarios above on anyone. Outlawing abortion in general is wrong. If you want to prevent it from being used as a form of birth control, then by all means put limitations on it, but don't outlaw it completely. Sometimes it is the only choice.
Not pro-abortion but definitely pro-choice. There is a difference.
How about a thought of a different kind
Would like to hear your opinions on this one.
What if Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and other mass murders or the people that kidnap and kill innocent children had been aborted. Would have saved a lot of heart ache with the victims and their family.
Okay, I know you will probably say nobody knew before they were born that they would have done that, but what if there was a test that could be done that would definitely without a doubt, 100% proof to be able to tell if the baby was going to be someone like them. Then what would your stance on abortion be.
That was kind of pathetic.
I'm reminded daily on this board, how most democrats refuse to allow any opinion other than their own, without some form of negative name calling or put down.
Most of you dems are downright mean and nasty.
I thought you were the party of hope, change, love, and social equality for everyone.
Seems if one is republican or in the middle, leaning to the right, you have no rights at all, in you dems' minds.
Unbelievable.
Kind of a low blow...
Kind of a low blow,don't you think, and had nothing to do with politics.
Christians as much or more charitable work in this country than anyone else does. And not because the government is taking it out of our checks and redistributing it. We do it without being forced to. It is not unChristian to want the government to stay out of our pocketbooks any more than they already are. If there are those of you who think that we are not taxed enough and the government is not doing enough in programs, then establish a private foundation and fund it yourselves and dole it out to whoever you feel need it. Christian organizations all over the world do it daily. Don't depend on the government to do it, and don't double dip on those of us who take care of the poor because we feel an obligation to, privately, not have the government take it from us and unilaterally decide who is most deserving of it.
At least you were kind about it, oldtimer....sm
The three dems above you, are not kind at all.
It's the kind of "democracy" we have
been force-fed for eight years. And your question is?
And this is exactly the kind of attitude
that I feel will ruin us if Obama is elected. Oh...if you don't want to pay your fair share.....just don't make as much. Why should people feel like they have to lower their income. It will make hard working people not want to work hard because the government just takes what they earn. Then you have the people who don't make anything and are living off of the government and that number will grow. The more government assistance given, the more they want and the more they will take. It will make spending for these programs outrageous. Why should we enable people to mooch off of the government?
I understand there are people who legitimately need help. People who are truly disabled and can't work. However, there are many others who are literally just mooching so they don't have to work.
I have to think of MY future. I have two kids who will go through college. One boy is a freshman now so college really isn't too fair away. I have a house I'm paying for. I have a special needs child that requires more of my money. I want to put my hard earned money back for my kids and myself for a rainy day. I don't want it taken from me and given to people who I don't know and who I don't know whether they truly need it or are just lying and mooching off of the government.
The bottom line is this, making more money is an incentive to work hard. You take their money away and give to people who don't work hard and what does that show.....it shows that you don't have to work hard because the government will pick of the tab and it shows the hard workers....why bother. I don't want that for my country. I don't want my kids raised in that kind of life thinking that hard work doesn't pay off.
That's exactly the kind of debate he wants..
no questions asked...wonder if he still has to pay the teleprompter guy? No town hall meetings, can't handle the real public asking him unscripted questions....umm, errr, wellll, ahhhh, hmmm....
What kind of Christian
I have been a Christian my entire life. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, but branched out when I started studying theology on my own and not taking what I was told in church at face value.
The church I belong to, a congregation of PC-USA, considers itself pretty radical. Not all Christians are evangelical in theology. Jesus was a bit of a radical too. Lots of us are Obama supporters, but there are McCain supporters as well. Thing is, we don't question each others Christianity because of the way someone votes. Isn't really a Christian thing to do.
I see nothing wrong with keeping religion out of the government, and I actually prefer it that way.
Now see, is that kind of talk really necessary?
Seriously.
thank you for your kind words sm
However, I see on this board a lot of things about the biased Fox news, but it bothers me that the liberal media does not highlight some of the good that is happening in Iraq. I do not think that it is a waste of time to help the innocent people who were being persecuted under Hussein's rule. It is a falsehood that most Iraqis do not want us there. Most of them area thankful for all the good that we have done. I do not think that this is needless. However, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
I'm here laughing at your kind.
HaHaHa. That's what I'll be saying to you on Nov. 4th. Mark my word. It's just so funny, it hurts.
Oh? And exactly what is 'my kind?'
*
|
!["](http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_01.gif")
!["](http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_02.gif")
