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

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Birth certificates in general

Posted By: gourdpainter on 2008-11-29
In Reply to: An example............sm - m

No I did not watch the youtube link you posted.  That  is definitely not a credible source for such an important issue as this.  The CERTIFIED copy on Factcheck (and never mind discussing the credibility of Fact check) should be enough, it shows the fold marks and clearly the certification and signature.

Many, many years ago, I worked in a small hospital and in addition to my MT-ing, part of my job was to obtain birth certificate applications from new moms.  I know that my birth certificate has the AGE of my parents at my birth, not their birth dates.  It also lists the state in which they were born.  I do not know what Hawaii requirements for birth certificates are but when it is certified by the STATE I would assume it to be legitimate.  The hospital issued "birth certificate" is  not and never has been to my knowledge, a legal document.

With the furious campaining done by Hillary and McCain, do you not even stop to think that if they had not been absolutely certain that his birth certificate was legitimate they wouldn't have blown the lid off months and months ago, especially when it became obvious he was likely to win???  Saying otherwise is ridiculous.  They had no problem trashing him with  Ayers, etc. up until Day Last did they?  Anything to try to knock him out of the race.  So are you saying they are part of the conspiracy to "cover up" Obama's birth certificate?  Come on.....legitimate MTs are more intelligent than that.  Since I don't know you, I have no idea if you are an MT or not.

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

birth certificates...

I just pulled out my daughter's birth certificate to look at it after reading a post somewhere below that said that Obama's birth certificate did not have a lot of information on it that birth certificates have (such as weights, name of particular hospital, etc.) and guess what - neither does my daughters.  It has the raised seal and is signed by the American consulate of the United States and states that she was born a female in Nuernberg, Bavaria, Germany on (insert date) and that it was recorded on (insert date). 

Nowhere does it say what hospital, what time, who the parents are, what the birthweight was, or any of that stuff.  This is just an official copy that they gave me and they kept all that other stuff on file.

So, if my daughter is most definitely an American citizen and it is not on her birth certificate - why would Barack Obama's necessarily have to have it? Maybe it was not their custom in Hawaii at the time he WA born to put all that on the birth certificates.  So just because it is not there does not make it a fake.

General Casey wants to cut and run.


Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 26, 2006; A01

Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.

That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress, Boxer said on CBS's Face the Nation. Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the worst-kept secrets in town -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration, Levin said on Fox News Sunday. It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory.

At issue was a report yesterday in the New York Times that Casey presented a private briefing at the Pentagon last week in which he projected that the number of U.S. combat brigades -- each with about 3,500 troops -- would decrease from 14 to five or six by the end of 2007. About 127,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, including many support troops beyond the combat brigades.

White House and Pentagon officials declined to confirm the projections, saying only that Casey met with President Bush on Friday to discuss how the military might proceed in Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forms a new government. Bush has often said the U.S. military will stand down as Iraqi forces become adequately trained to handle security.

One White House official said there was no formal plan presented or signed off on in Casey's meeting with Bush, only a discussion of various scenarios to guide their talks with the new Iraqi government.

We are entering a phase where discussions with the Iraqis will begin to practically define what 'stand up, stand down' will look like over the next two years, said this official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal conversations.

This official dismissed the suggestion by some Democrats that Casey's approach resembles their approach. A conditions-based strategy outlined by our generals on the ground is a far cry from politicians in Washington setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal, the official said.

A Pentagon official said his impression is that Bush and Casey had no lengthy discussion about troop reductions, and that any projections of specific numbers remain speculative. This source noted that Casey had said that he hoped U.S. force levels would be substantially reduced this year but has decided against such a move because of the continuing violence in Iraq.

I think there will be a modest decrease between now and the end of the year, the official added. But, he concluded, Nobody really knows.

U.S. commanders have long wanted to cut the size of their force in Iraq. But plans to do so have proven difficult to realize.

Before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, the Pentagon's war plans called for a swift reduction, from about 150,000 to 30,000 by the early autumn of that year. Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, told a congressional committee that the thinking behind this was that it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine.

That plan was shelved when a fierce insurgency broke out in the summer of 2003. That fall, top commanders hoped to cut the U.S. presence to about 100,000 by the next summer. But a major escalation in violence in the spring of 2004, along with the collapse of the new Iraqi police force and parts of the new army, forced that plan to be discarded as well.

The result is that the United States has kept about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq for the past three years, with occasional fluctuations to as high as 160,000.

The widespread expectation inside the Army is that the U.S. presence will be cut to about 100,000 by the end of this year, with further reductions in 2007 to perhaps 50,000 to 75,000. That size could be maintained almost indefinitely by the Army and the Marine Corps. But whether those new plans will be realized will depend on events in Iraq, which have proven difficult to predict.

Casey's meeting with Bush followed an eventful several weeks in Iraq that included the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the completion of a new Iraqi government. It also followed particularly rancorous debates in the House and Senate, in which GOP lawmakers -- with the encouragement of the White House -- went after Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of the war effort and said decisions about issues such as troop deployments should remain with the president.

Coming so soon after the congressional debates, the report of Casey's briefing served to keep the debate going another day.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored an unsuccessful resolution setting a July 1, 2007, deadline for the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, issued a statement saying the Casey plan looks an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey?

But Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, played down the significance of the reported briefing. The department's drawn up plans at all times, but I think it would be wrong now to say that this is the plan that we're going to operate under, he said on Fox News Sunday.

Warner counseled patience. We have struggled and made tremendous sacrifice to give this nation its sovereignty, he said. They are now beginning to exercise this sovereignty with a young government. Give them a chance to move out. We will consult with them. I'm confident our government will not let them make mistakes that would reflect adversely on troop withdrawals.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voiced some skepticism that the administration can reach the conditions set for withdrawing troops.

Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific, he said on Face the Nation. So getting to the plans either of General Casey or Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

In general, they are being persecuted.

People rarely speak of the majority you mentioned. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake since Iraq and Iran were basically enemies, working against each others interests.  Now, thanks to US, the area has been split wide open with positive Iranian influence now present in Iraq, something Saddam Hussein had fought.

Obama in the general
There is a reason Rush Limbaugh has encouraged listeners to go and vote for Hillary. It's the same reason that major Republican players have said publicly they "pray night and day" that the candidate will be Hillary and not Obama. Hillary is too divisive. The Republicans are sure they can beat her. They feel much less confident about beating Obama. Look, staunch Democrats will vote for either candidate (Hillary or Obama) in the general election. Staunch Republicans will vote for McCain. Independents and moderates lean towards Obama. Odds are strongly in favor of a Democrat taking the White House this November (barring a fresh terrorist attack between now and then on homeland, in which case it goes hands down to McCain). The Republicans know the odds are not in their favor to win. That's why they "pray night and day" the Democratic candidate is Hillary. Then they have a chance.
Well, wonder what the general thinks about...
the 500 metric tons of yellowcake uranium that was just moved out of Iraq to Canada...Ms. Valerie Plame said during that big scandal that Hussein did not even have access to it...and now we have...uh...500 metric tons of it removed from Iraq. The Bush Administration and new Iraqi government kept it secret so the terrorists operating there would not target it until they could get it out of there. Got any idea how much 500 metric tons is? There's your reality check. Hussein was everything Clinton and his admin and Bush and his admin said he was. And he DID have WMD...he used it on his own people. Reality check indeed.

As to abortion...and Roe vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade is illegal on its face. Activist judges struck down a law and made a new one, and they cannot do that by the Constitution. Only the COngress on state and federal level can enact law. FOr that reason alone it should be struck down.
It's all about choice? Then why can a mother drown a 2-day-old baby and that's murder? That's a choice as well. Why can't a person just shoot someone they find annoying and inconvenient? That's a choice.

Maybe it is not a priority to you, my friend. It is to me. So you vote for the man who will give you the right to choose, and I will vote for the man who at some point will stand up for the Constitution and not install activist judges who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold.
Sorry, didn't mean you.....just in general
Atheists, in general,.....sm
are not ignorant of the Bible. If I ever said anything that led anyone to believe that, then my words were misinterpreted. What I do believe is that atheists generally approach the Bible with the intent of proving it wrong or contradictory which is just another "doctrine" by which they interpret the Bible. There was a man named Lee Strobel who tried to prove atheism through the Bible and became a Christian in the process. Most would call him a failure at what he set out to do, but I believe he was a winner in the end.
I was speaking of the left in general. SM

I came here at first to debate. It took two posts of acting people to be reasonable in debating (all can be found on this board) before I was labeled by gt.  Since then, after multiple attempts at trying to debate, I have come to point out that while you may think you have taken the higher ground, you have indeed created a cesspool.   So proud that the conservative board is "quiet and peaceful" when those who made it otherwise are posting here daily.  Most of the posters on the convservative board afforded you the decency and honor of not posting here.  But that favor was never returned.  You (and I mean others, I have no idea who YOU are since everyone picks the name of the moment) bullied, brow-beat, denigrated and beat to a pulp any poster who dared to post on the Conservative board.  And it wasn't just AG and Nan and MT. It was anyone.  Well, you have your wish now. You are queens of everything  Masters of your domain.  Live in the land where NO ONE DARES TO DISAGREE with you.  Happy now?  As if.

Was that before or after General Colin Powell
In general kids can be very cruel.

How many fat kids in school were popular?  Not many, eh?  This type of behavior stems from home.  How many of us talk bad about other people in front of our children?  I'm not just talking about homosexual bashing either.  How many of us gossip about what so and so wore, etc.?  How many of us bash others when we don't think our kids are paying attention? 

How many times do Christians post on here and are bashed horribly for their beliefs and called names?  How many Christians post on here bashing homosexuals and calling them sick freaks?  This type of behavior comes in all shapes and sizes and comes from all sides....black vs white, gay vs straight, believer vs nonbeliever. 

You cannot take on particular subject like homosexuality and us it soley to teach tolerance of people different than you.  There are many other things that children are picked on for than just that one subject. 

Oh look at 4 eyes over there or how about that dork with the braces, etc.  Look at the kid not wearing designer clothes.  Look at the freak with the emo makeup on. 

See what I mean.....tolerance is such a broad thing to teach children that you can't just use homosexuality to teach tolerance and I think it is unfair to people who do not agree with homosexuality that their kids are being taught ACCEPTANCE and not just tolerance on that issue anyway. 

Like I said before....I keep my God out of school.....keep your homosexuality out as well. 

This article is about Alaskan oil production in general...
It is not specific to ANWR.  It also leaves out a lot of facts - there are also native groups very much AGAINST the ANWR - it only mentions that some support.  PLEASE provide nonpartisan and balanced information....PLEASE. 
It is at the advice of the office of the attorney general...
of the state of Alaska. It has turned into a political hatchet job. Just a scant few months ago, Hollis French (running the "investigative" committee) said that the governor's office was cooperating and no subpoenas were necessary. Then, when she was picked as the VP candidate and Obama folks descended on Alaska...all of a sudden the "investigation" grew (and the pictures of Obama and Hollis French and the other key democrat on this committee yucking it up surfaced). It has come to light that the investigator they hired is a personal friend of the man he is investigating. No bias there, right? Now that the attorney general is involved, politics can be removed from this and it can be brought to a result, whatever that result is.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Flew right past that basic right, eh?

Now son of a Democratic congressman being investigated for hacking her personal email. Wondering how THAT will turn out.

He was advised to do so by the attorney general's office...
of the state of Alaska. Actually, the letter came from the attorney general to the committee, stating that no one would be responding to the subpoenas pending their investigation. No one "scoffed" at subpoenas.
Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania...
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 08/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States
What's exceptionally annoying about politics in general ...
... is when someone comes out with an accusation (or a promise) and doesn't back it up with real information, facts, or plans.

Kind of like this post.
Is General Motors Worth Saving?

Then came October. Sales plummeted an astounding 45% over the same period last year, a result of a slowing economy and a dearth of financing for would-be car buyers. Total U.S. car and light-truck sales this year could come in at 13.5 million, 2.6 million fewer than last year. "That's in nobody's business plan," says Kimberly Rodriguez, an automotive specialist with Grant Thornton. "The best planning in the world cannot survive that fluctuation." It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. The company is burning through more than $2 billion each month. It has $16 billion left. As if they were aboard a dirigible losing altitude, GM's bosses have been frantically throwing all manner of stuff overboard — retiree health-care benefits, people, assets, new car design — to conserve $5 billion. That will get it through the year. (See pictures of the 50 worst cars of all time.)

But 2009 is the year of reckoning for GM and the rest of the domestic auto industry, if not the economy as a whole. The GM crisis is raising once again the issue of how far the government should go in rescuing banks, insurance companies, mortgage holders, credit-card issuers and now carmakers. GM has no doubts about it. "Immediate federal funding is essential in order for the U.S. automotive industry to weather this downturn," GM president Fritz Henderson admitted to investors during a conference call in which GM announced a third-quarter loss of $2.5 billion.

No one is more aware of that need than Barack Obama, who carried Michigan by a huge margin. The President-elect is committed to helping the Detroit Three, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading a rescue party that plans to get a bailout bill in front of President Bush before Thanksgiving. So far, the President has offered only to speed through Congress an already approved $25 billion loan to help Detroit create new fuel-efficient models. But GM needs an additional $10 billion simply to pay its bills next year and $15 billion more to close plants, compensate redundant workers and dump some of its lesser-performing brands.

The issue boils down to a historic proposition: Is what's good for GM still good for the country?

"If GM were to go into a free-fall bankruptcy and didn't pay its trade debts, then the entire domestic auto industry shuts down," says Rodriguez. The system — the domestic auto plants and their interconnected group of suppliers — is far bigger than GM. It includes 54 North American manufacturing plants and at least 4,000 so-called Tier 1 suppliers — firms that feed parts and subassemblies directly to those plants. That includes mom-and-pop outfits but also a dozen or so large companies such as Lear, Johnson Controls and GM's former captive Delphi. Beyond those are thousands of the suppliers' suppliers.

Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three, and even if you discount the figures because of CAR's allegiance, it's a big number. Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry. (See Pictures of the Week.)

Even if just one of the Detroit Three — and GM is the most likely, as Ford is in better shape and Chrysler is much smaller — spiraled into a free-fall bankruptcy, the systemic effects, at least initially, would be huge. The whole industry would not be able to build cars in the U.S., because of the lack of parts. "Unlike the airlines or steel, when you look at the automobile industry and the fact that the whole supplier base is connected — to Ford, Chrysler, Toyota — it will have a ripple effect on the entire industry," says Nicole Y. Lamb-Hale, a bankruptcy expert at the Detroit office of Foley & Lardner, a law firm that represents some GM suppliers.

A carefully planned, prepackaged bankruptcy would still be troublesome, she says. Throwing 479,000 GM retirees onto the rolls of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., for instance, could overwhelm it. And GM's agreement to fund the United Auto Workers' voluntary employee beneficiary association (VEBA) — thus getting a $50 billion unfunded liability off its books — might then be in jeopardy, as would the union's health benefits. The VEBA has already saved GM nearly $5 billion in the past quarter, and still greater benefits lie ahead.

A bailout won't spare GM or its workers pain. Assuming the government bridges GM to the future — or provides debtor-in-possession financing in a bankruptcy — there is still a ton of restructuring to do. The company operates 21 plants in North America and has three more that are scheduled to close. But Grant Thornton's Rodriguez says that still leaves five to go to match demand. "They still need to take structural steps: reduce suppliers, reduce the number of plants, reduce the cost structure and get rid of excessive debt." Most analysts say GM has to dump underperforming brands too.

Shutting down plants and cutting labor are costly — it's one of the ironies of the auto business. Deutsche Bank estimates that GM would have to spend $12 billion to chop labor costs and compensate dealers who lose their franchises. That would lower GM's North American operating costs from the current $31 billion to $25 billion annually, says Deutsche Bank. (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)

None of this can happen without the cooperation of the UAW, which is probably feeling better knowing that Obama is on his way to Washington. Although it hasn't shown its hand, the UAW may try to mitigate job losses in the U.S. by pushing GM and Ford to build fewer vehicles in Mexico, according to Sean McAlinden, chief economist at CAR. Obama might be sympathetic to that argument; he said during the campaign that NAFTA needed to be re-examined. The carrot for GM is that any new workers it hires in the U.S. will make $13 to $14 an hour and collect limited benefits rather than work for $29 an hour and get full benefits — the old UAW wage.

There's also a legitimate question as to who would do the restructuring. GM CEO Rick Wagoner has made the case that his crew is best placed to run the turnaround since it knows where the cost buttons are. But critics like Jim Schrager at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business say the wrong people are in charge: "I think you would only put money in GM if you had a complete change in the board and the current management. They are diligent. They worked very hard, but it just hasn't worked." In Schrager's view, GM is a strategic failure. It can manufacture high-quality cars, but it neither makes the right kind nor markets them effectively. He'd bust the company up into three independent firms: Chevy, Buick-Pontiac-GMC and Cadillac-Saab-Saturn.

If that's ultimately where Detroit ends up, is it worth the price to get there? Put another way, does GM deserve to be bailed out or left at the mercy of the market and almost certain death? "The University of Chicago training in me says the market should prevail," says Schrager. "But the Chrysler bailout was a success, and, gosh, I'd love to save it." That sentiment is not shared by everyone, and it goes to the heart of the central economic debate facing the country — between hard-nosed capitalists, who believe the market should decide, and public-policy types who view the economy as something far more organic than a balance sheet. But ultimately, whether GM is dead or alive, the taxpayers are on the hook for billions, for everything from lost tax revenues to higher unemployment costs to taking over GM's pension obligations. The decision that Washington has to make is whether we pay for GM's survival or for its funeral.

— With reporting by Joseph R. Szczesny / Detroit

All general statements are false, so you are wrong... sm
There is one exception. Fox News fans are idiots.
They're just sick of big government in general!
The moderate Islamists, that is the general population
condemn the actions of the fundamentalists and radicals, they do not agree with them, as those backfired on them.

These wars have nothing to do with religion, they are all political wars.
What's this business about a Chinese general threatening to use nukes against the US if necessary,sm

over the treaty with Taiwan?  This was reported on Fox News this week.

Anyone been following this?

I made a general observation relative to the post.
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.

Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."

Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.

He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.

This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics

Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves

In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.

Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"

Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.

Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”

I am addressing racism in general & some of the racial words that were used on this board earlier (s
I am not an Obama supporter specifically because of his pastor's racial biases against white people and because I disagree with Obama's stance on partial birth abortion. I am against racism in all forms. I am against Obama's terrorist friends, I am very unhappy about the church Obama attended for 20 years. I am voting for McCain ONLY to vote against Obama because I do not want him to be our president. Both candidates have a lot of bad history & I wish there was another option. However, I love people of all races. You are making this into a racial election. I want to leave racial terms like "towelhead" and "oreo" and "halfbreed" off of this board. Do you find those words necessary to make your points? If so, your vocabulary and mind are obviously very limited.
Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
I am appalled, and would hope everyone on this board is too. These are the people who hate us and want to kill us, and the liberals/democrats/Obama, want to close down this base, bring them to America, and give them the same rights that we have.

Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

By Catherine Herridge

* E-Mail
* Print

* Share:
o Digg
o Facebook
o StumbleUpon
o Post to MySpace!


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The soldiers who guard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed say he is a calculating man, a monster in a monk's habit and a leader of the prisoners locked away in Guantanamo Bay, where he's on trial for the murder of thousands.

With rare access and interviews, FOX News has learned new and sobering details about "The Sheikh," the man known simply as KSM.

"I was there when they read him his charges," said Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti, deputy commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. "Pretty sobering moment — charged with murder, terrorism, conspiracy. He looked at the sheet and said 'I did this, I did this, I did this. I did more than this. I'm guilty. I feel sorry for my defense attorney.'"

Zanetti told FOX News about life behind the wire at Guantanamo Bay's maximum security camps. Camp 7 is home to the most notorious, including Mohammed, the master planner of 9/11.

"He's very compliant, he is very studious and he is very calculating. He thinks things through very well, he plays things out. When you watch him in court, he has all of this choreographed," Zanetti said.

"He wants to die — he wants to be a martyr for the cause. He believes his story is being written right now, to be laid down side by side next to [the Prophet] Muhammad," Zanetti told FOX News.

Inside Guantanamo, maximum security cells provide an arrow pointing toward Mecca to orient the prisoners for prayer. Mohammed prays constantly, apparently a devout man, which Zanetti finds mystifying.

"The guy's got a long beard, studious glasses — he looked like a professor. ... You see him in a cell and he'll pray hours on end. What God are you praying to? What are you thinking, what is going on up there?" Zanetti wonders. "But if he could do it all again, he would."

Even in captivity, he still is leading members of AL Qaeda, who fall in lock-step with his plans.

"He knows what he's going to say, the message he wants to get out, what he's going to have his followers do. You've seen him in court — very quickly people fall in behind him."

Sketch artist Janet Hamlin's brush with Mohammed came at his first court appearance at Guantanamo in June. As a courtesy, the military allowed KSM to review the sketch. He quickly sent word to Hamlin that he hated it.

"He doesn't like it. He's saying he won't approve of it, it cannot be released until the nose is changed," she told FOX News. Mohammed made his demands clear: "'Tell her to find my FBI photo off the Internet, use that as reference. Fix it.'"

Mohammed's concern about his image is fundamental, but it can also breed rivalries among the detainees.

"You see this inside the camps; they get jealous of each other: 'You were in the news more than I was in the news.' It drives [Mohammed] crazy if he thinks no one cares. He thinks he's part of this much bigger picture," Zanetti said.

But the picture inside Guantanamo is often an ugly one. Some prisoners do all in their power to violate the guards.

"What they do is stuff that you and I would find despicable. They save up their bodily fluid, feces and so on, and then when the guard comes to deliver food, they get a feces cocktail thrown in their face."

It's something Zanetti says occurs almost daily, and weighs heavily on the guards, who are tasked with feeding and clothing the prisoners and tending to them when they are sick. Hospital staff get the worst exposure of all from the detainees, he said.

"You ensure that their life is as comfortable as possible while the detainees are trying to make the guards' life as miserable as possible."

Those daily doses of hatred are a stark reminder about some of the men locked up inside the camp, including Mohammed, who has claimed responsibility for decapitating Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.

"We have more than our fair share of Hannibal Lecters around here," Zanetti said.

Pro birth control....s/m
I'm definitely not pro abortion, but am pro choice in, what should be, the rare event of unexpected pregnancy, and in that case I think that the woman herself should be the one to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not, and if so, it should remain a safe, and legal option.  It's an extremely emotional, and difficult decision for most women to have to make in that situation.. I did a quick look and see that the abortion rate in the US has declined from 1996 to 2002. I'm going to look for statistics from 2002 to the present when I have more time. I think the key in the main is stressing birth control measures, and also making those measures affordable to all women across all socio-economic groups.
Birth control is....
used to prevent pregnancy......not kill an innocent child AFTER it is conceived.   BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!  How do you people sleep at night?
As far as birth control....I have not seen anything about...
people wanting to remove birth control. Just because an individual elects not to use it does not mean they do not want anyone else to have access. With this permissive society liberals have created there is really no choice but to provide it.

Yes, there are natural causes for miscarriage. That is leaving it up to God. For us to put the life of an innocent child totally in the hands of someone else to choose whether it lives or dies, just as a personal choice, I believe is wrong. Just as those in these orphanges murdered children...it is murder. Killing an innocent for no reason other than "oops" is wrong.

What overturning Roe vs. wade would do is put it back in the hands of legislators who, by the constitution, are the only ones who can enact laws. The Supreme Court should not be enacting laws. They are to interpret...not legislate. I believe it should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. Then put it to a state-by-state vote. Some states would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother. Some would outlaw it, period. Some would allow it in all forms. But at least it would be the will of the people.

Why do you think congress has never tried to pass an abortion law? Even when the democrats had control? Even before Roe vs. Wade? The truth is in the pudding.
birth certificate

As in the words of Archie Bunker from "All in the Family" to his TV wife Edith:  "Stifle yourself...geeeez".

I assume you were there at his birth?
Birth certificatem(sm)
I agree with above.  No way would Obama have been elected president if he wasn't a legitimate candidate.  Believe me when government employees have to undergo background checks these days, I am sure he was subjected to the same plus more.  To me this is just a loud-mouthed, disgruntled black man who probably in his mind thought he was going to be our first black president.  Too bad Obama beat him to the punch. 
I think it is just like the birth certificate - it won't go away. nm
BTW, there are much better birth control
options than birth control pills. One of them IUDs, when those are in, there is nothing to 'forget' about them.
That you can say this about partial birth abortion sm
says to me that you are a proponent of relative morality or that you have no idea what partial birth abortion entails.  Once a society starts with the whatever seems right to you mentality in regards to life, then we are doomed.  Pardon me if I say that I am so glad I am not you.
Not everyone has the same access to birth control. sm
I guess you didn't watch 20/20 this past Friday night? You can view it on their website. Go to http://abcnews.go.com/2020 and click on Watch: Babies in Memphis

I think everyone who is interested in this current thread would find it interesting, whatever your opinion on abortion is. It was called "Babyland" because that's what the locals call the cemetary where all the premature babies who die are buried if their mother can't afford to bury them.

It was about how the poverty-striken areas in Memphis, TN have much greater rates of premature births and deaths of babies than the more affleunt areas. Why? Lots of reasons, but probably the main one is lack of money, which means lack of prenatal care. No insurance and no easy access to a free or low-cost clinic. Lack of education. The girl they profiled was 18 and pregnant, and they showed another girl who had gotten pregnant at 12 yrs old, now a mother at 13. I mean, yeah, a 12 y/o shouldn't be having sex - she's still a child, but how in the world would she have access to birth control? She wouldn't.

It showed how the closest clinic is only open during the day (and only 1/2 day on Sat., to cut costs). No evening or weekend hours, so what are you supposed to do, take time off work, which you can't afford, to go get birth control (or prenatal care, etc.) which you also can't afford? I mean to you or me it may seem like a no-brainer - if nothing else go to the drugstore and get a box of condoms for $10.00, or the Today sponge thingie, but maybe they don't even have an extra $10.00 (or the time and $ to take 2 buses to get to the drugstore?).

All I'm saying is, the situation is different for everyone. I've personally never had an easy time with any method of birth control I've tried, and it's a bit of a wonder to me that I've never had an unplanned pregnancy because of that. Maybe because of that, I try to be less judgmental of others. Oops, more to say but I've got to go...

Birth control would have been nice.
I knew about birth control.
However, was I willing to go to my mom and ask her to put me on the pill.  I knew my mother would have suspected my sexual activity and I didn't want her to know.  Most teens also have the belief that "it won't happen to me."  Now that I'm older, I see how some of the decisions I made back when I was 17 were poor ones, but at that time I thought they were great ideas.  Do I blame my mom and dad for the bad decisions I made back then....no.  Those were my decisions, my choices, and I had to deal with the consequences. 
She supports birth control and ..

supports abstinence-only education in schools, but she has also said she does not support tax payer dollars to distribute birth control in schools. She is a member of Feminists for Life, which is an pro-life group.

Feminist for Life is a pro-life group that has had its positions distorted to show that they are against birth control. Palin critics (including many in the media) have cherry picked in order to smear Gov. Palin.

There is no proof. Birth certificate has been
The only proof you have is that you have no legitimate campaign strategy and your candidate's campaign is going down in flames over this relentless stupidity.
Obama birth certificate
I received an e-mail today that has been floating around.  Any truth to Obama not releasing his birth certificate to prove he was actually born in this country? Any facts to back this up?
Maybe you still have your original birth certificate...sm
I sure didn't. When I went to get a passport I had to order a copy from the city where I was born. It was a photocopy. All birth certificate copies come with a seal for authenticity. There are no more "originals filed". Everything is computerized or on microfilm.
'vault' birth certificate
Oldtmer - thank you!!
It also mentioned a birth announcement
"Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4."

Now, while that may not be a legal document, I highly doubt that way back on August 4, 1961, Obama's mother decided to state that he was born in Hawaii because some day he might grow up to be president.

There was no legal reason why she would have done that. He would have been considered a citizen, even if he had been born in Kenya. Maybe not natural born, but legal, and she would have had no reason to lie ... way, way, way back then.

Either way, what you're stating is that several INDEPENDENT organizations, including a legal court of America, are lying or covering up the truth FOR Obama.

It's a paranoid accusation to a very high degree, and I think, if nothing else, the campaigns this year have done nothing but heighten these delusions.

On both sides, even.

The Obama birth question may forever live in the annals of conspiracy theory - along with the U.S. moon landing "hoax" and the presence of reptilians who can shapeshift at will - but it would behoove our country to recognize it as an unproductive, divisive conspiracy theory that deserves much less attention than, say, a strong, compassionate, united nation.
"County" of birth, not "count..nm

Birth certificate authentification
Here's a link detailing how Obama's birth certificate has been investigated and why you need to drop this ridiculous charge that he's been perpetuating a lie for years.

whose insurance does not pay for birth control?
Mine sure as heck does. It is much cheaper to prevent births than pay for them. It makes fiscal sense.
birth certificate nonsense
Personally, I like the way factcheck.org handled this: They went and looked at the birth certificate. Then they went and looked at the birth announcement in the newspaper from 1961. Now, admittedly, it's possible that Obama's disciples FLEW BACK IN TIME to plant the birth announcement so that their Chosen One could ascend to power. I think we do have to consider that option carefully, because it leads us to ask--what if NEXT they GO BACK IN TIME TO CREATE AN OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT FOR *EVERY* ELECTION EVER HELD IN THE US????

Obama birth certificate. What you can do.

For those that feel strongly that Obama is ineligible to be the president due to unanswered questions regarding his birth certificate, there is something that you can do about it. 

The key here is that you need to be very proactive.  Posting about Obama's birth certificate on message boards, in emails and such will not result in him ultimately being unable to serve as president due to this very important issue. 

Many here have written extensively about this issue, and seem quite knowlegable regarding the actual facts surrounding his birth certificate, and the fact that he, in reality, is legally disqualifed from serving as president.

The many posters here who are deeply concerned about this issue, need to take thiings a step further than merely posting about this. 

Here is what you need to do.  Make an appointment to consult with an attorney and state your concerns to said attorney.  For a retainer fee the attorney will accept the case on your behalf.  Retainer fees are not that high, usually for a case such as this the retainer fee would run a couple of thousand dollars, plus whatever hourly fee the attorney charges.  The more people that take this proactive approach, the higher the likelihood that the case will be heard and ultimately Obama would be removed from office due to this birth certificate issue. 

In the event that the case is heard and dismissed, the next step is to file an appeal.  The retainer fees for an appeal run higher than the initial  retainer fee, however again it is not that expensive, with the ballpark figure of approximately $5,000.plus whatever hourly fee your attorney charges, and here again the more people that do this the higher the liklihood of Obama being removed from office due to this so very important issue.

On December 5, 2008, this issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court and likely there will be no furtherance on this. As many of you already know, a federal judge dismissed this very important case, and the Supreme Court is likely to follow suit in this coverup regarding Obama and his birth certificate.

I urge  all who post about this so often and feel very strongly about this issue to take action, retain an attorney and follow through with the case to its conclusion.  In the end, with your collective efforts and knowlege about the real issues regarding Obama and the birth certificate, you will have prevented, or caused the removal of, a person from serving in the highest office in the nation  who, in fact, is not legally qualified to serve in that capacity.  In doing this you will have performed the ultimate act of patriotism.

Sometimes in life you have to put your money where your mouth is, and this is one of those times. 

Obama's birth certificate
This issue is irrelevant at this point. Even if it can be proven that he was not born in the US, he has lived here most of his life, had an American mother, has an American wife and American kids, and has served in the US Senate, not to mention the fact that he won the presidential election by a landslide. If you think this issue will prevent Barack Obama from taking office or disqualify him from serving at some point, dream on. 
Show us your birth certificate


this is an outrage.  citizens of this nation have demanded to see his birth records.  he answers to us and he refuses to be accountable to us.  i think that i should no longer be required to show mine.  if he has that right, why don't I? 

birth certificae? That's old news,.nm
Exactly! I think Obama campaigned since birth.