Uh-oh, Michele!

well, if she really believed what she was saying, she'd refuse the money not as a show of integrity (though that would be nice too), but because she'd genuinely think the federal money would create a nanny state in minnesota, discourage free market initiative, and create a bunch of welfare queens in minnesota fat on federal largess. either she really believes that federal spending creates that sort of environment, or she doesn't. obviously she doesn't.
 
/snort

God, the list of gray lines.

Every once in awhile I take ignore off, and peek. Not very often, though. It's against my religion to suffer fools gladly.

Your negativity, bashing topics, slewing insults and taking things out of context has reached the point of ad nauseum. You need a new gimmick, this one isn't working so well for you.
 
/snort

God, the list of gray lines.

Every once in awhile I take ignore off, and peek. Not very often, though. It's against my religion to suffer fools gladly.

Your negativity, bashing topics, slewing insults and taking things out of context has reached the point of ad nauseum. You need a new gimmick, this one isn't working so well for you.

i think it's working fine. but what's a "bashing topic"? what's a "slewing insult"? that's fascinating stuff.

as for "negativity," there's a lot these days to be negative about.
 
/snort

God, the list of gray lines.

Every once in awhile I take ignore off, and peek. Not very often, though. It's against my religion to suffer fools gladly.

Your negativity, bashing topics, slewing insults and taking things out of context has reached the point of ad nauseum. You need a new gimmick, this one isn't working so well for you.

i think it's working fine. but what's a "bashing topic"? what's a "slewing insult"? that's fascinating stuff.

as for "negativity," there's a lot these days to be negative about.

I checked the dictionary. They're all subsections for "member of the opposition party." :)
 
Just be glad she didn't threaten to sit on you

Looks like this thread ruffled a few feathers.:eek::lol:

That's the third time I've heard that in this thread. And if you think they're kooks/unhinged now (which they are), think about election day 2012 when Obama begins his pack-out. The Libs will be jumping off buildings.

You wish. Ironically, I've seen that prediction before, too. Depends on who's at the helm, stupid.
 
the thing that sucks about the flame-baiters is that you do a post that you put a little thought into and then it gets lost in pages upon pages of "libturd" talk.

Chuckle...it's obvious YOU haven't been around long!
 
Looks like this thread ruffled a few feathers.:eek::lol:

That's the third time I've heard that in this thread. And if you think they're kooks/unhinged now (which they are), think about election day 2012 when Obama begins his pack-out. The Libs will be jumping off buildings.

Believe me, we haven't seen nothing yet. The more the Obamas numbers fall the nastier things will become.

Payback's a bitch, sweetie. Deal with it.

Frankly, I don't care if he wins or not. But I will never allow the illiterate fringe to try to convince me they know better either.
 
the thing that sucks about the flame-baiters is that you do a post that you put a little thought into and then it gets lost in pages upon pages of "libturd" talk.

Two things. 1) put all of them on ignore. You KNOW they have nothing to contribute. 2) Set your posts per page to 40. 3) WINNING!

I don't believe in putting anyone on ignore, unless the person is a stalker (and there are those) whose only intent is to try to bring you down by their crude comments, never having a single thing to do with the issue. Otherwise, I think it's probably more frustrating if you reference a person's comment, especially directed at you, in another post responding to someone else. They feel so slighted. :lol:
 
the thing that sucks about the flame-baiters is that you do a post that you put a little thought into and then it gets lost in pages upon pages of "libturd" talk.

Two things. 1) put all of them on ignore. You KNOW they have nothing to contribute. 2) Set your posts per page to 40. 3) WINNING!

I don't believe in putting anyone on ignore, unless the person is a stalker (and there are those) whose only intent is to try to bring you down by their crude comments, never having a single thing to do with the issue. Otherwise, I think it's probably more frustrating if you reference a person's comment, especially directed at you, in another post responding to someone else. They feel so slighted. :lol:

Exactly. The bolded is who I have on ignore. Rude, ignorant, petulant, Fox viewing *did I already say ignorant* asshats who live on this board to troll and talk shit - but I repeat myself.
 
I am a conservative and I have good sense about people, this gal does not do anything but set off my warning system. She really does not need to be elected, however I do agree with her when she talks trash about libs and oobama, just cant really stand her
 
Wow, there seems to be more Michelle threads than Sarah threads these days.

Give it time. Sarah can't stand to be out of the limelight for too long. Her new national "bus tour" has already rolled through Iowa once, New Hampshire on the day Romney announced his candidacy, and now she will return to Iowa this weekend (for the fair :lol:). I think the nationwide spread-the-message "bus" has made only 3 other stops. Who does she think she's kidding?
 
OMG, put EVERYONE on Ignore..

If you want to be in a echo chamber where everyone spouts the same shit, stay at the Pufferpost, the dailykos, or better yet, go to the DuUnderground..:

what a bunch of crybabies.

So which "unbiased" blogs do you visit? This should be interesting. I'll know if you make shit up.
 
/snort

God, the list of gray lines.

Every once in awhile I take ignore off, and peek. Not very often, though. It's against my religion to suffer fools gladly.

Your negativity, bashing topics, slewing insults and taking things out of context has reached the point of ad nauseum. You need a new gimmick, this one isn't working so well for you.

That kind of admonition didn't work out too well for me when I was a noob and said the same thing to all the insulting cons who post here. I guess you just have to learn the hard way that this board, LIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICAL BOARD, is a two-way street.
 
OMG, put EVERYONE on Ignore..

If you want to be in a echo chamber where everyone spouts the same shit, stay at the Pufferpost, the dailykos, or better yet, go to the DuUnderground..:

what a bunch of crybabies.

So which "unbiased" blogs do you visit? This should be interesting. I'll know if you make shit up.

I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. I have always read your post and HAVE never replied to you, but I found them very interesting from your point of view. I only replied in this thread because you called me dumb. So I will tell you now, this will be my last post to you. You want to go on this little thing you call, payback. have at it.
Have a good one.
 
OMG, put EVERYONE on Ignore..

If you want to be in a echo chamber where everyone spouts the same shit, stay at the Pufferpost, the dailykos, or better yet, go to the DuUnderground..:

what a bunch of crybabies.

So which "unbiased" blogs do you visit? This should be interesting. I'll know if you make shit up.

I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. I have always read your post and HAVE never replied to you, but I found them very interesting from your point of view. I only replied in this thread because you called me dumb. So I will tell you now, this will be my last post to you. You want to go on this little thing you call, payback. have at it.
Have a good one.

That's very interesting, because I wouldn't come down so hard on you unless you hadn't dished out the insults to me in the past. (And no, I'm not going looking for them.) Perhaps if you hadn't, and had at least expressed that what I do have to say "interests" you, this exchange wouldn't even have been necessary.
 
Bachmann openly advocated against raising the debt ceiling to allow the U.S. to continue to borrow, a move that policy experts from both parties believed would lead to default.

Wallace invoked the recent debt ceiling drama, and noted that credit rating agency Standard & Poor's cited political considerations -- including the serious consideration of default among some members of Congress -- when downgrading its AAA credit rating on U.S. debt.

Bachmann claimed she had never advocated for default, but had put a plan on the table that would have denied an increase in the debt ceiling and instead required the Treasury Department to prioritize payments to U.S. creditors, Social Security recipients, Medicare beneficiaries and the U.S. military.

When Wallace noted that doing so would have required defunding a majority of government programs, from unemployment benefits to the FBI, Bachmann suggested that she was not bothered by that prospect.

"Doesn't that tell you how bad off the U.S. is -- the fact that we're overspending to that amount?" Bachmann said.

When asked how she would be able to work with Democrats to reassure markets if she were elected president, Bachmann said she would "work tirelessly" to ensure that the Republican Party picked up 13 seats in the Senate, giving Republicans a filibuster-proof majority to enact her agenda.

"That would send a very strong signal to the market," Bachmann said.

She'll never make it. I don't care what the straw polls say. She's unhinged, and clueless to boot.

Michele Bachmann Says More Stimulus Money Would Have Helped Her District
 
Bachmann openly advocated against raising the debt ceiling to allow the U.S. to continue to borrow, a move that policy experts from both parties believed would lead to default.

Wallace invoked the recent debt ceiling drama, and noted that credit rating agency Standard & Poor's cited political considerations -- including the serious consideration of default among some members of Congress -- when downgrading its AAA credit rating on U.S. debt.

Bachmann claimed she had never advocated for default, but had put a plan on the table that would have denied an increase in the debt ceiling and instead required the Treasury Department to prioritize payments to U.S. creditors, Social Security recipients, Medicare beneficiaries and the U.S. military.

When Wallace noted that doing so would have required defunding a majority of government programs, from unemployment benefits to the FBI, Bachmann suggested that she was not bothered by that prospect.

"Doesn't that tell you how bad off the U.S. is -- the fact that we're overspending to that amount?" Bachmann said.

When asked how she would be able to work with Democrats to reassure markets if she were elected president, Bachmann said she would "work tirelessly" to ensure that the Republican Party picked up 13 seats in the Senate, giving Republicans a filibuster-proof majority to enact her agenda.

"That would send a very strong signal to the market," Bachmann said.

She'll never make it. I don't care what the straw polls say. She's unhinged, and clueless to boot.

Michele Bachmann Says More Stimulus Money Would Have Helped Her District

"Bachmann openly advocated against raising the debt ceiling to allow the U.S. to continue to borrow, a move that policy experts from both parties believed would lead to default"

Preventing new borrowing doesn't lead to default, not paying back the money you already borrowed is what leads to default.
 
You don't recognize two-faced when you see it, do you.

She could have refused the monies. They had other places to go. She didn't. She not only repeatedly asked, but she then turned around and said things like this,

“During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy [of spending]," she said of the stimulus and auto industry bailout during a conference in Minnesota on May 4, 2009. "It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed."

Less than three weeks later, she went looking for her piece of the pie.

Lots here with that issue.
 
Why should her district receive the benefits, while she continues to run her mouth about how horrible it all is, and she's for smaller government, and the stimulus was completely worthless?

Because her constituents are fucking paying for it, you fucking moron. If we're payin', we're entitled.

Stupid fucking leftist moron. How dumb can one person be? Seriously. I don't even like Bachman but you people (and by you people I mean idiots who don't get basic economics) make her look like a fucking genius in comparison.

Man, I would hate to be as dirt dumb as you.
 
You don't recognize two-faced when you see it, do you.

She could have refused the monies. They had other places to go. She didn't. She not only repeatedly asked, but she then turned around and said things like this,

“During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy [of spending]," she said of the stimulus and auto industry bailout during a conference in Minnesota on May 4, 2009. "It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed."

Less than three weeks later, she went looking for her piece of the pie.

Lots here with that issue.

There's also quite a few who lack basic brain function. BD is one of them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top