Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

You started the condescending, Teddy...

Posted By: Observer on 2006-11-17
In Reply to: I might say... - Irritated Teddy

read your post again. It was very condescending. You talked down to me, and I thought it might be fun to respond from down there where you put me. You talked down to me and you were rude. You know it and I know it. I was just giving it back to you. Now that we are past the kid stuff, could you please answer my question, and enlighten me as to what the *big picture* was that I missed and leave the condescending attitude out of it. As to being a dumb condescending Polack...your words, and not mine...it is so hilarious to me the parallels. My guy is of Polack/German ancestry and he is standing behind me as I type, and we are enjoying a good laugh, so thank you from this Choctaw/Cherokee/Irish gal and her dumb Polack guy. LOL. We are looking forward to the *big picture* point, though.


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 get an A for condescending...
but an F for cognition. My issue with Clinton, which I stated over and over ad nauseam, was with the fact that he committed felony perjury. It is you folks who keep bringing up the sex life. One would think you all have Monica envy.

The fact that you condone perjury and have no problem with that makes me wonder about your own "values."

Now that is condescending. nm
.
Condescending.
x
not condescending sm
I have no attitude problem here. I and many people I know do not want to vote for any of the 4 candidates. We are voting because it is our duty and not for any of them so far. Ms. Palin is intelligent, gifted, etc., but would you want her in the White House in charge of the country and the future of our country? Terrorists are not going to worry about Palin or any of the rest of them. Our children are going to have to get out there and have their throats slit if we make the wrong decision. The jury is still out and we have to weigh every issue, every candidate and listen carefully. Anyone who has their mind already made up as to our future and our children's future is free to post here. As for me, I am no elitist, I just want the best candidate. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker - what is the automatic assumption of position for her should someone die? Think, think, pay attention to "every word" from this bunch. I am "worried" and you should be as well! It's too early to tell, we are in the worst mess since the depression, so be informed and alert! No bread lines and no body bags for my family if I can help it. This is not a beauty contest or a popularity contest, it's the life of our loved ones at stake here. No news there, common sense!
I think it was condescending
I doubt there were many Americans who haven't at least heard of Fannie and Freddie.  That's what the politicians are hoping...that we the people are so DUMB we don't know what is going on.
Why are you always so condescending?
nm
They ain't living unless they are being condescending

and down right vulgar (hence the expletives tonight).  You're right.. the only time they have anything going here is when we come over.  They have nothing constructive to talk about when they aren't looking down their noses at conservatives who question their statements or bashing Bush.  It's a big yawnfest


That's why I'm using the moniker leftist/lib basher.  The best way to rile them up is to call them by what they call themselves.  Oh, wait a minute.  They're progressives now.  They'll be progressives until we call them that then they'll say we're calling them names and change it again.  Yes, they have tender widdle feelings.


Condescending? nawww....
you guys have the corner on that market. When you use it, you should not complain when it is used on you. However, you are much better at it, and I willingly bow to the master.

"Liberalism and conservatism are born out of political ideologies." Well, that certainly explains how compassion became a word and not a thread of your life. And I repeat...a desolate life it must be. Do you see ANY positives in life (well other than the crusade for utter destruction of those eevvvillllll conservatives...lol)?

"And your job here is to discount the liberal posts by condescencion?" Uh...no. Just as you asserted in your post, it is my right to disagree and it is my right to post what I believe or criticize what I do not believe. But oh...good grief...what am I thinking?? Only liberals have that right....right? lol!

"Is this a self-appointed job? Or nominated?" Does it matter? Why do you only preach to the choir? If you want to spread your message, that doesn't really make much sense, does it? Well of course it does, if you want people to support and validate you and need that to confirm and shore up your "political ideology. This post does actually answer my initial question...your life is controlled and motivated by "political ideology." What about your moral standard? Is that also formed by "political ideology?" Is your moral standard not influenced by "Liberal Thinking?"

But, bottom line, to use your own words...we all have the right to our opinion, and we all have the right to express it. No matter how much you would like it differently, it is still a free country...for ALL of us.
Must you be so snitty and condescending?...
....there seem to be quite a handful of democrats that post on this board all day long ad nauseum. Why don't you single them out?
They can't help it...snotty and condescending...
part of the DNA.
you are right. Condescending attitudes only
nm
It's not condescending attitude that
turns you away from Obama, it is your refusal to think for yourself and to vote for your own best interests.
condescending attitudes

Palin - Hilliary is a whiner (before picked for VP).  After picked -- I honor her for her trail making.


mcCain's rich financial advisor - America is now a nation of whiners.  They are having a mental recession.


 


 


What a condescending attitude.
.
Elitist and condescending much?? nm
nm
Condescending? You really have no idea
the fringe element that promotes this nonsense is, do you? Nothing condescending in expressing the views shared by WAY more than the majority of my fellow citizens...not to mention election officials nationwide who put candidates' names on the ballot, mainstream media, including even Fox, who is not making much of this story, Hawaiian authorities, their republican governor and, of course, the judges who threw the law suits out of court, just to name a few.
Could you BE any more condescending? He is called Mr. President. sm
Like the poster below said, this is 6th grade stuff with the name calling and cutie pie nicknames.  Time to grow up now. Time to stop being members of the sore loser club.
Why do you say Obama has a condescending attitude? I think he is ...sm
much more understanding of the problems of the average American than McCain is.
It's not any more condescending than your post was attacking....
with all due respect. You view "independent" differently than I do. I was just explaining. I am not a Republican.
Well there is a condescending elitist statement....lol.
nm
Yes, and condescending, biased, partisan.
nm
It wasn't condescending, and the man in front of him was nodding...
I had heard of them but certainly not to the extent I know about them now. I am sure there are lots of people in the US who had no clue who Fannie/Freddie were.
Thanks Teddy :-)

I appreciate that and I hope someone can respond to the questions I raised.


Teddy

News Releases


For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337


HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology



Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).


“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”


In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.


In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.


According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.


Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.


Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”

“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”


Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred


See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation


8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)


Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew


Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”


Teddy...sm
I've been on break from the board too. Seems the older I get the less patience for time for ad nauseum reposts. Life is too precious.
Teddy...
You don't have to change anything unless, of course, you want to. This is the liberral board and you can post anything (except of course, anything derogatory about W). I meant to post this yesterday but just did not get around to it. It is difficult to be in the middle of a barrage of slams. I know I will try to answer a post, then get 2 more posts that are going on about something else and then I try to answer those and then they are telling me I never answered their posts, and then they talk about you to each other on the board and say **you didn't answer my question. That is what the left does.**It is hard to keep up and keep a civil tongue (keyboard) when you are alone amongst the opposition. However, do not give up or leave. Sometimes I find it necessary to take some time away from here, but at the very least I can say I kept up with them....rather than **I'm done with you. You are delusional. I am not talking to you any more.** I get a lot of that. You are not alone here.
Why Teddy...did not know you were such a fan...
why didn't you post what those posts were in REPLY to? Talk about your selective posting. LOL.
Whatever, Teddy, whatever...
you trot out the condescending prattle, I get really tired. Bottom line, I don't believe you. If you think that means I am calling you a liar, that is your problem. Why you cannot get a simple explanation is beyond me. Do you think if a person lies about one thing, that makes a person a liar? I save the term "liar" for a person I know lies continuously. Every one of us on this board has lied at one time about something. Does that mean we are all liars?? Get a grip.
Tired Teddy....
You need to get a new shtick. The condescending has passed onto obnoxious...in other words, its gettin' tired, Teddy.

Yep...believe it or not, I really do know there is a written record of all posts. I just don't know how I am going to sleep at night worrying about how you feel about my posts. <--that last sentence was meant to be facetious, just to help you recognize it.

If you are trying to come across as snooty, you nailed it.

Have a good night.
Pardon me, Teddy....
but just because someone posts here what they do, does not mean they do it. And if I do not choose to blow my own horn and brag about all the wonderful things I do, please do not interpret that to mean that I do not do something. I am retired and therefore can no longer serve, that does not mean I have never served or if I was able to serve I would not be right there. Please do not preach to me about involvement. And please to answer my question. Why do you not take this peacenik talk to the people who threaten the peace? Unless of course you are a terrorist apologist who thinks the United States is the big bad wolf who causes all the problems. If you believe that, then you should be on the first plane out.

Last time I looked, I and no other American had flown a plane into a building and killed 3000 people in one day. Last time I looked, I or any other American had not bombed embassies, bombed the Cole, downed the plane over Lockerbie, bombed the World Trade Center the first time...you are sooo typical of the angry liberal...and so typical...*my boyfriend says* *Michael Moore says* *Lurker says* Have you ever, my friend, had an independent thought while your butt is sitting there comfy in in YOUR chair??

And please to do the research...there are a great many in Congress who have children serving right now. I know people personally who are serving right now or have children serving right now. You might want to jump back down off that high horse and check out your rancid statements.

As long as we are on butts...you make mine hurt.

Have a good day!!
Dear Teddy....
you are So very angry, because you are so frustrated. And the way you post is far from *sassy.* I will leave it at that.
I am going to go out on a limb here, Teddy....
We both believe what we say, even though total opposition. We are both convinced we are *right.* We are both worried about the future of the country. You get frustrated, I get frustrated. You can't imagine why I believe what I believe, I can't imagine why you believe what you believe....and so it goes. You get frustrated and lash out and I become the enemy. I get frustrated and bite my knuckles.

Let me try to make you understand where I am coming from on Bush and on the military. First let me say...I give due respect to anyone holding the office of the Presidency while they are in office, and I will until they disgrace it...like Nixon did by breaking the law, like Clinton did by breaking the law. I condemn both and let neither slide. The point being...now Bush is President. Congress authorized use of force and he did it. We have soldiers fighting as we speak. I support our military. I support our military no matter WHO is President. I supported our military during Nam and we had a Dem President also during that time, and when John Kennedy sent more troops to Nam I supported him. It is not necessary that the President not be a Democrat for me to support decisions. Understand this about me if you do not understand anything else...even if I did not think Congress was correct to authorize use of force, even if I did not think Bush was correct to exercise that right and send troops, the fact remains, THEY ARE THERE, and I will support them AND their mission until they come home, because their morale and their safety and their ability to win is more important than my personal opinion of the Congress or the President, whoever he (or she) might be.

I hope this somewhat clarifies where I come from at least on that issue.
No it doesn't Teddy. sm
I can see examples of not agreeing on the very first page and they are still there. 
Bye, Teddy....until the next time....
you do a drive-by attack.  Wish I could say it was good to see you again.    You have a GOOD day now!
You're a class act, Teddy.
I hope you decide to stay. 
Excellent post, Teddy!
Thank you for your eloquent post. Hopefully, the trolls won't come out to tell you that you are guilty of treason and should leave the country because YOU are not willing to avert your eyes and do not pretend we do not commit atrocities.

You are in good company:
*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere* Martin Luther King

*The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it* Albert Einstein
Another wonderful post, Teddy.

Obviously, no human being on earth can say with any degree of credibility that agnostics call out to Jesus when the time is near.  Nobody can possibly know what every other person on earth calls out, if anything. 


For some, peace comes from religion.  Others are able to find peace within themselves.  Some never find it.  Each person must follow their heart and brain and find the niche that works best for them. 


I guess Islamic fascists aren't the only ones who try to force their religion on everyone else.  The difference is that the United States isn't supposed to favor one religion over another.  We're supposed to be a nation that has religious freedom. 


This is especially dangerous during a time when war with religious fanatics is involved.  To pledge undying, unquestioning loyalty and support of Israel in political matters (even if some feel they have acted badly) soley for personal religious reasons (to insure one's place in heaven) is very dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world.  This is why politics and religion don't mix, and this is why the United States is becoming such a scary place.   :-(


Sorry....I meant for the above to post under Teddy's...
post below titled Viet Nam and WWII...sorry.
Teddy, give it a rest already. sm
We have, through the years, LONG before you were posting here, made a distinct difference between liberals and leftists. If you would actually read the posts, instead of reading Ann Coulter, which for some reason you feel a Clockwork Orangish type of inescapability to read, you would see that.  But instead in post after post after post you go on and on with a litany of wrongs against the poor liberals on the conservative board.  Give it a rest already.  As far as your assertion that Vietnam and Korea were civil wars, well, I am not quite sure how to address that gigantic historial distortion.  I won't even try.
Teddy, you are not the board moderator. sm

And liberals are posting on the conservative board and do you see us ordering them off?  You really have no tolerance.  And by the way, the little article about dissention in the ranks, it seems all isn't what it appears to be.  Shocker there.


http://newsbusters.org/


 


And Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his sm
grave about the so-called Republicans nowdays...
If anyone knows who Lifelong Democrat is, Teddy...
it would certainly be YOU. Funny how the posts and attitude are so SIMILAR. If anyone cares to, they can go back and compare. The alter egos all like to do the same thing....hide behind different monikers and take pot shots. It is easy to tell, looking at all the postings here, what is going on. As to sarcasm, accusation and putdown...anyone who reads my initial post and then those of LLD and now this one can tell who is the queen of that mode. I would invite anyone to check out the LLD and Teddy posts, among others, and they will know the truth. Most of the posters here on the Liberal board are not of that mindset.

I never said all the posters on the liberal board were one person, and I did not say it last night. Funny how when it was mentioned *Teddy* showed up. I know its you and you know its you. Most of the other posters know its you. And for some reason you have a real problem with me and love to swoop in and attack, and the posts are always the same. Condescending, holier-than-thou....it's like a signature. Methinks she doth protest too much.
For the record, Teddy/Taiga....
the rest of the post said when it wasn't in response to what had been thrown at me first. Methinks you are very guilty of what you always accuse me of....cutting and pasting out of context. Teddy is taking over again.
Yes, I did, Teddy....read the whole post.
I said show some that were not responses to baits or barbs thrown at me by piglet primarily. That is exactly what I said. Again, out of context.

As to Teddy/Taiga...I knew you only as Teddy (and a few other monikers by style of posting), and I do lean back toward that moniker when the posts lean in that direction, because under that moniker is when you were more likely to bait, demean, and ridicule. In short, "Teddy" seemed to be more "cranky" more often than does "Taiga."

As to posting as Observer....I don't know about that. No one was posting as Observer when I started posting using that moniker. Which has been quite some time now.

As to when someone does it first, why respond in kind? For a long time I did not. But I guess, like you, after a prolonged period of being baited, demeaned, and ridiculed, I got "cranky" too and responded in kind. So I guess we have that in common. Like I said...I am learning at the feet of the masters.

Some who post here tho, do not appear to be "cranky." Baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing seem to be in their nature (hence the Ann Coulter of the liberal board comment). I don't appreciate Ann Coulter's brand of humor either, by the way. I don't find baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing amusing. By anyone, on any side of any aisle.
Brunson...remember Teddy?
Teddy and Taiga are one in the same, though she adamantly denied it until she tripped herself up and finally had to admit it. However, the truth eventually catches up and she just had to be her...if you know what I mean. Would not surprise me if she was the one hounding you. The Teddy side of the personality definitely has/had a mean streak.
Not even close Teddy/Taiga....
not EVEN close. lol.
Maybe because she is not Teddy Roosevelt and it isn't 1900?

How Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
1. Attended both Harvard and Columbia.
2. Shared interest in and promotion of civil service.
3. As an author: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors "Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition."
4. Candidate of change/reform. http://obama4usa.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/major-endorsements-for-barack-obama/October 19, 2008, Bryan College Station Texas Eagle newspaper endorsement: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be. Barack Obama is such a leader.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/331720/barack_obama_following_the_foot_steps.html?page=2&cat=8 "Barack Obama Following the Foot Steps of Theodore Roosevelt Who was a Reformer"
5. Champion of worker's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Labor_unions to check out Labor union and union leadership endorsements. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm to find a nifty summary of Obama's initiatives and policies on worker's rights.
6. Advocate of "ordinary citizen." Obama's appeal to the middle class is legendary and the current bone of contention on the McCain Joe the Plumber campaign trail. 'Nuff said.
7. Obama on Trustbusting: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
8. On corporate corruption: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
9. On regulation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-27-economy-speech_N.htm "Fix Markets Regulations." Specifically relative to interstate commerce, the following are bills either sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama: Senate Bill (SB) 767 and SB 768 on fuel economy, SB 1306 on product safety and hazardous materials, SB 2132 on product safety prohibiting lead content . Regulation in E-commerce, credit card, banking, mortgage lending sectors.
10. Universal health care and national health insurance. Well known support, as is his support for conservation and the environment.
11. Judicial reform that would restore integrity of judicial discretion.

Teddy wrote books about something other than himself!
You can hardly compare Obama's narcissistic biographies with Teddy's books where he researched and wrote about something other than himself!

Thank you for the elitist, condescending, loyal-to-the-party post...but the juvenile playground name
should be left on the playground.

Bottom line...Joe Biden is a liar. Whether he lied about being John McCain's friend or he lied when he attacked him...he lied. He is a liar. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnall's. If being devoid of character is what floats your boat, great. If loyalty to the party means checking your integrity at the door, so be it. If people want to associate with people of that "ilk" (your word, not mine), so be it. You might try looking up honesty and integrity while you are at it.

You criticize Bush for saying you are with us or you are against us, but isn't that exactly what you are saying here? If you aren't willing to do whatever it takes to put forward the party, then we don't want you...you're against us. Hey kettle..you are as black as the pot.

Your two posts are much more acidic than mine ever thought about being. Exactly what principles are you loyal to? I always thought honesty and integrity were principles. Hmmm. Well I guess not part of your party principles.

No, au contraire, I am sure you are a proud democrat. I am sure liberals are proud to be liberals. That is not in question. Whatever the cost, no matter what lies have to be told, what friends cast under the bus...

And in case you had not noticed, there are a lot of Americans out here who are not tied to the "party" like you are. This is probably the same kind of talk that was abounding in the National Social German worker's party. Look THAT up in your Funk and wagnall's while you are at it.

And before your head spins around and you spit fire...I don't think for a minute, thank GOD, that all Democrats share your hard line loyalty to the party at all costs.

Lady, you're scary.
Applauding your fantastic post Teddy. (NT)

:-)