What is nasty? The sour grapes you must chew? nm
Posted By: Mrs. M on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: And it's still nasty (nm) - Backwards typist
nm
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
sour grapes, chew chew, sour grapes nm
nm
The grapes are SOUR
anyway, said the disgruntled fox.
Sour grapes..sm
It is not necessary for a senator or congressman to go to Iraq to know what is going on there, but for those politicians who need to rely more on image than substance, these trips may be helpful, even though they do end up only preaching to the choir. No response to the personal slam is necessary as it adds nothing but contempt to the dialogue. This “hoohah” has a much more dignified name, although it seems to be a 4-letter word for some. It’s called diplomacy. The US has a long history of it and millions of Americans and other “citizens of the world” look forward to seeing this honored tradition restored. It sure beats the heck out of invasion, occupation, bombing countries into democracy and all that collateral death and destruction. Denying doesn’t make it so. McCain challenged Obama, the media goaded him and he complied with their wishes. More importantly, he came out smelling like a rose, and for all of us who paid attention, it was a long overdue breath of fresh air. This demand to hear Obama admit that the surge worked is nothing more than a distraction and a desperate ploy to throw attention off the success of his trip. He is not alone in his views about the surge and about the needless war that preceded it and he is not required to say what his detractors want to hear. He is simply being true to his own beliefs, something that many among us find extremely attractive.
Sour grapes.
simply does not begin to compare to Obama's. It's just kills you guys when you have a momentary insight into the vacuous plan your candidate presents.
A close examination of Obama's healthcare plan AND the history of debate on this subject dating back to the early 90s reveals that not only are his proposals feasible, they are exactly what is needed to make healthcare affordable and accessible. What in the world do you folks have against insurance plans that cover pre-existing conditions? In fact, I am old enough to remember when they did just that, so I know that it is possible and that the insurance companies still managed to enjoy reasonable profits and competitive stock prices. Get over yourselves, already.
Exactly sam. The only sour grapes
I have is that my household falls in the category of rich according to O and he is going to tax the heck out of us in order to help those who won't help themselves. Socialism is on its way baby, and those who are blinded by O are in for a rude awakening when it starts to slowly creep in. It's not going to happen overnight, it will happen in a way that will be palatable and not rouse suspicion, stated in a way that many will believe. I am kind of looking forward to the backlash that's going to happen in the coming years; thank goodness we here are prepared for it and have seen it coming; we have not been led to the cliff only to be thrown off of it.
Sour grapes from
x
Nobody said otherwise. He's just a sour grapes
no self-respecting "leftie" would be caught dead in the same room with him.
sour grapes and
No, YOU can't.
OBAMA WON, someone is sour grapes!!! tee hee
smiling
You are munching on sour grapes.... too bad nm
nm
Well....pardon me if I want to separate sour grapes...
from the truth. Verifying facts is not critiquing. I do it because I want to know the truth. Somehow it loses its punch when she lists: "She has hated me since 1992." lol.
Sounds like sour grapes because OBAMA WON
HE WON
Just sour grapes because Err America is dead in the water???
Media matters wouldn't know satire if it was intelligently explained to them. Rush has fun with people like this who are so serious they look as if they never take the hangers out of their coats. Everything mediamatters spouts about him are things that Rush was saying just to get their goat.
They fall into his trap every time, and it makes them look like the humorless people they really are. He was doing the same thing with the Survivor remarks he made last week, and as you can see people took him very seriously. They play right into his hands.
Wow, such sour grapes!!! I know it's hard to lose but try to be classy nm
nm
sour grapes because McGeezer and Ditz lost hahaha nm
nm
Calling people honey and dear just weakens your lame repub cause SOUR GRAPES
too bad you can't be a real American and be proud of Obama!
I know SOUR GRAPES squish when I hear it! hahaha!!!!! GLOATING !!! I'm gloating about Obama
hahaha, jealous
Something to chew on.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
No. He can walk and chew gum
This information has been up on his website since the day he announced his candidacy. Selective hearing does not make a convincing argument. The tax increase is aimed at INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000. The tax cut applies to the rest of us. Hello….He can do both. What part of MTs are middle class workers do you not get? No he is not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to reverse Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Basically, this would reset status quo back to the day before those tax cuts went into effect. I "get around it" with the truth. Like the OP below pointed out, Obama cannot create more social programs without the majority support of Congress. That's the way democracy works. He is simply trying to restore funding for longstanding program commitments that has been stripped, diverted or discontinued over the Bush years to fund the war. Read his platform. Examine his voting record. There is no inconsistency between the two. The only one around here who is being "run" is you…by smear tactics. He is not wishy-washy either. He is not ashamed of being able to broker compromise, and that is exactly what this country needs to break this deadly gridlock in Congress. Don't you care anything about making an informed choice?
Can't walk and chew gum?
NM
I can walk and chew gum at the same time, but
thanks for your sage advice and inspirational wisdom. I keep up with it all but prefer to at least wait for the swearing in and the first 100 days before even beginning to draw any conclusions or making any sort of judgments.
ITMT, just as the GOP will be watching O like a hawk and calling him out on his every move, the dems will continue to do the same with the GOP contenders. The prospect of EVER having Palin be remotely associated with a position of power in the lower 48 is what will propel her opponents to take a page out of W's book and wage our preemptive strikes whenever and whereever they can. You are dreaming to think that nobody cares about this. If they didn't, the posts would not appear, the media would not be covering it and we would not be having this conversation. FYI, I'm not the one who is scouring the internet about SP, but I am entitled to weigh in when the opportunity presents itself.
Nothing funny about staying on message and following a thread. I respond plenty when the occasion arises about all the rest and for the record, I think Blago is a disgrace to the party and to our country and, if found guilty, should do hard time. You may chose to set your sites on Chicago politics, no problem. However, I do not find that nearly as compelling at the moment as the rising death toll in Gaza, the human suffering and humanitarian crisis and the truckload of lies that is coming out of the media day in and day out, so I scour the net for the other side of the story, since I have family and friends over there. Kindly refrain from trying to tell me what my priorities should be.
Wow, you sure are quick! BTW...love grapes! nm
//
sweet - more like sour and rotten LOL LOL LOL
x
Geez. This has to be the most sour, unhappy bunch of people I have ever...
seen. sigh.
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.
Can't chew gum. Would've if I could've.
Even got hypnotized. Supposedly guaranteed to quit. Lasted 5 hours. Thank heavens I never smoked anything stronger. 
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.
|
