You are such a negative person - I saw your other posts.
Posted By: spmt on 2008-05-15
In Reply to: Pwnd....huh? I think you need to leave now before.. - hmmmm...
So hmmmmmm
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
You are the most unhappy, negative person I have ever seen! nm
From all your posts I can tell you are a really good person sm
I am going to look for proof to give you, because I really do believe it is true that he associates with terrorists. Yes, they are both liars and we don't have a good choice, but I really believe Obama means to do our country harm. Did you read Sam's last post above?
Just ignore these posts by this person, Chele....
...she's been trying for hours to get people to respond back to her crapola. Don't give her the satisfaction.
Suffice it to say, what comes around, goes around. She'll find that out, one of these days, I'm sure.
I get the sad feeling, though, that she'll be back by another name, yet again,, as these seem eerily like other poster aliases that come and go with such frequency, maligning the Republican side with such venom. Such hatred makes for a very sad, unhappy person, indeed.
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.
what a bunch of negative
nellies. Why even bother getting up in the morning with that burden of resentment on your shoulders?
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.
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.
yes, the first person did....the person replying to that post...
was talking about the founding fathers...who came along a long time after the witch trials. You replied to the second post, not the first one. I was replying to you based on that. Purtianism came first...Christianity was the religion practiced by the founding fathers. It is evident in their writings and in most of our original documents.
I think we can stop whipping this dead horse now.
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
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.
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.
Whoops....A person....not I person.
.
She also posts regularly here. Who are you to say where she posts? nm
//
No, we are not the same person....
Americangirl is a Republican I believe, and I am an independent (who changed my registration to Repub so I could vote in the primary, but will be changing back), but yes, we are both conservative. In some ways she more so than I, in some ways I more so than she. If you look at our posts, we are very different in how we post and we certainly don't agree with each other all the time.
The same could be said for many of the liberal posters. There is one for sure that posts under different monikers, but you can always tell...when one comes under attack the other swoops to defend. Americangirl and I do not post like that.
Thanks for asking.
Actually, you are the person who needs (sm)
to relax. I really do not know why you keep insisting that someone was smeared. It is rather bizarre. She posted an article that mentioned his middle name, you created a huge post about his middle name and why it is used to attack him, I mention that you are creating issues over nothing, then you insist that someone is being smeared? Very strange...
if one person somewhere
said that one time, we must take it completely seriously and mention it at every opportunity. Fight fire with fire.
Person like this is beyond help.
nm
The person who said this was not....
a commentator for Fox News. She is Caroline Baum and she works for Bloomberg News. She was being interviewed on the Fox Morning Show and was giving her opinion. Just that, her opinion. Why should there be outrage?
I'm the same person
Don't know how I got the two separated but just so you know I'm the same person. Don't want to appear misleading. Sometimes on the gab board I will put Kaydie and on the political board I put me, but every once inawhile the two get backwards. Not sure I can reset that so only one name will come up. Like I say, not being misleading I just don't know how to reset. PS, still been coming to the board here this morning since I last posted (I think I need some counseling to get un-addicted to this board ha ha), but still haven't had a chance to read your post. Still, thank you for the time you took to reseach and I will read with an open mind. After all I could be wrong. I usually tell people. I may not always be right, but I am never wrong. HA HA HA. Will read your post later - promise.
I think that each person needs to do what his ....sm
conscience tells him to do and not be criticized by us for doing so. Let the chips fall where they may.
Now I know this person is not an MT
"The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here." Made me laugh my butt off.
I don't see where this person is
racist at all. This person is merely pointing out that there is racism out there on BOTH sides and this is what it could potentially lead to.
No, this person's sig is also clearly sm as well
check it out, it's everywhere on here.
any person who
uses Hitler to compare anyone to, be it Obama or Bush, deserves to be ignored. There is no comparison to be made in this country to that era. To use his name for shock value shows extreme ignorance of history and inability to grasp basic facts, let alone nuances, relying instead on the worst of the worst. Shameful and ignorant.
I think it's down to $400/person now......sm
another cut courtesy of our esteemed politicians. That's only about $8.25 a week or a couple gallons of milk, at least at current prices.
And not one person gives him
a freebie just because of his skin color either....Sheesh.
I'll admit there are some people who are going to hate Obama just because he is black or mixed or whatever the heck he really is. But there are several people following him blindly for the exact same reason. So if you are going to post about racism....please do so fairly and consider both sides of the spectrum.
And not one person gives him
a freebie just because of his skin color either....Sheesh.
I'll admit there are some people who are going to hate Obama just because he is black or mixed or whatever the heck he really is. But there are several people following him blindly for the exact same reason. So if you are going to post about racism....please do so fairly and consider both sides of the spectrum.
I see a person as
either male or female. If that person decides to describe himself as a sin, that's how I will see them, based on the description they have given of themselves. And that description is sinful. Very simple. I hate the description because God tells me to hate it.
You're a very wise person.
There is a definite tendency for some posters on these boards (not so much this one) to very negatively judge a post based on who posted instead of what was contained in the post. And you're right. That just detracts from the entire value of the post when they do that. (Anyone who doesn't believe me can visit the Conservative and see how they chew up and spit out those who don't assign nicknames to themselves.)
Thanks for posting and thanks for the link.
Do you always speak of yourself in the third person? sm
I see no difference in your writing style. Same old stuff.
I probably have used third person at times....
Why is it so important to you?
And if you cannot see the obvious differences in writing, well, you appear to be quite ignorant or unobservant or else you are not telling the truth. But that is your problem and I am not going to make it mine!!!
Obviously, this person was not attacking. sm
The underlined part just goes to prove that they are NOT attacking liberals. I am unsure of your rationalization on this one.
Obviously, this person does not wish to debate. TI
We are wasting our time here.
Who said a person should be president because
My point is that we should be glad there are women in elections and holding high-profile positions in this country instead of attacking their mothering skills or parenting choices. There are plenty of women who think ANY mother that works outside the home in any form is making a poor parenting choice. It should be to each his or her own, please do not try to twist my words to fit your agenda. I never, EVER said I would vote for someone solely to have a woman in office. I said I hailed Hillary's accomplishment, not that I would vote for her (in fact, I said I didn't care for her) and I never said I agree with everything Palin says or does, just that her family is her own business.
On the contrary, I don't vote gender, family, public opinion, or party affiliation, I vote based on the person's abilities and whether I feel they are qualified for the position. Period.
Sally, you really are a mean person.
nm
Any person earning less than $57,490/yr
income earners in the US. We are not taling about skid row bums and deadbeats. Ever heard of the concept of the shrinking middle class? Is that a good thing for the nation? The lower 40% of the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US owns LESS THAN 1% of the total national wealth. This includes a very, very sizeable chunk of the entire middle class. MTs are always complaining about how they are not paid what they are worth. Does it make sense that all persons combined making less than $57,490/yr own less than 1% of the national wealth? Do these people do less than 1% of the work? Does this seem like an equitable distribution of wealth to you? Please answer these questions directly. Yes or no?
I person of faith
who pubically ridiculed the Bible in a speech. A man who has sketchy associations. A man who attended a school in Indonesia were his school records list his religion as muslim and yet he denies ever being a muslim. A man who allowed his children to be baptized and attend a church where the pastor preached hate messages. A man who supports partial birth abortions......
Please excuse me while I vomit!
I don't think any one person, President or not, can do much - sm
to change the stock market. It seems to have a life of its own, albeit a rather shady one. I don't feel too bad seeing the insurance companies take a hit - they're all crooks and they deserve what they get for being so dishonest. But banks, 401Ks, money market, etc. There has to be someplace left, other than under a mattress, where our savings/rainy-day/retirement money is at least somewhat safe, without earning 0 interest. And forget about buying real-estate! That bubble has burst, as well. Goodbye to any kind of financial security (or even a place to live) for lots of us in our so-called 'Golden Years'.
Well, see, that person that posted obviously has it in...sm
for sam. I know it. You know it. Everbody who sees it knows it....sooooo there's nothing to say because this person says it all about herself.
This person and her buddies play games with her all the time, and really act childish.
And, I, well....really.....unless I resort to name calling, I really have nothing to say, because this person has waayyyyyyyy too much time on their hands and has a personal vendetta against sam.
And by the way, I'm not on the board very often. I don't respond to every single post I see. I don't know who you have me confused with.
But really, all you're doing is being kind of condescending in your response here to me, so why should I bother?
You have me labeled a certain way, and frankly my dear, as one of your cohorts has said recently.....well, just frankly.....
You have too much time on your hands too, if you think you have to post to everybody's post....get a life....while you're at it, get me one too. I work too much and come here and find too much crap posted to try to sift through in a day....so I rarely bother.....just like you rarely to bother to know who I am......
oh, I must be ranting again.....sorry.....you probably think I had nothing to say anyway......
lolololol....................
At least I can laugh at myself, which some on this board don't know how to do anymore.
This is not conviction but a person who has been
xx
That "unskilled" person could have been my
DH 25 years ago. The first and only company he has worked for sent him to school and now he is at over 200K a year, not too bad for unskilled.
As a godless person myself....
who used to call herself an atheist, until I discovered that in itself was a type of warped-ass "religion," I think it is totally rude, distateful, and smacks of looking for a fight. Why can't we all just be good to one another? It's so much easier to do and makes ya feel good inside. 
|
