imported post
Pat_1111 wrote:
Why would you think I was talking about you?
Because you posted after mine in the other thread. So, did you have me in mind or not? (I? = a question)
Pat_1111
wrote:
Anyway you read the quote or the context of the quote it was cruel.
You don't know that. You obviously have no objectivity in this matter and have your own agenda. You even went as far as to misrepresent the situation. Fine. The President is cruel. I actually like that in a leader...none of this touchy-feely liberal crap. We need more cold, heartless Republicans in office. In fact, I think he should have had Newt put her kids in an orphanage, that way, she won't need to work three jobs!
Pat_1111
wrote:
For investing...I am trying to say that you should plan on not having social security or TSP in the future...
SS is a tax and I agree with you on that; I do not consider it in my retirement planning. This has been mentioned on the board recently, butperhaps the quips and jibes got you so emotional that you missed it.
I do not agree with you on not having TSP funds in the future. It is not a tax, it is an option, and it is managed by Barclay's.
Pat_1111
wrote:
She has to work three jobs to provide for her family. Ha ha, I guess...life is a big joke.
For some, it is. She made her choices and that is where she is. Kudos to her for keeping it together and not whining for government handouts.
**NEWS FLASH** Women are not required to have kids, so spare the pity party. Can I say "but...but...WHO will pay for my Ferrari?!? whooOOOOoo?" Well, those three kids probably cost as much as one and they are all
optional.
Pat_1111
wrote:
I wonder how soon the bashing would start. I was not disappointed. Thank you!
Yes, you keep mentioning it. Perhaps you already know your view is askew?
Why is it that you complain that people allegedly aren't allowed to disagree, but when I disagree with you, you say I am 'bashing'? That's twice you've done the very thing about which you complained.
C'mon now...are you really MT in drag? ehehehe