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

But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

Posted By: double wow on 2006-07-19
In Reply to: Well pardon me, but how can you discuss the present without a history of sm - MT

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.




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

I love democrats! I love most of the past democratic presidents (sm)
I would love for there to be a good democrat I could vote for. I want good leadership and I want change. But I truly believe to purposely ignore a symbol speaks volumes. He is not just asking the symbol to wait, he is ignoring it on purpose. Avoiding it on purpose. Why do you think that is? There is a reason. Can you not see it?
I was trying to discuss things with you

You obviously have a great hatred for our country and our president and cannot see the difference between Bush and world leaders who are set on the destruction of the United States and Israel. The Iranian president has made his intentions known about what he wants to do to Israel and the U.S. In fact, he had a nice little P.R. campaign in his country this past week detailing what he wants to do to us. If you are so naive to believe he just wants his country to have energy from nuclear plants then I guess you deviate from what much the U.S. and the rest of world thinks about Iran's intentions.

I said the nuclear option should be the last resort as I believe our president would make it, but you are so lost in your world of conspiracy theory on Bush's character and intentions that you evidently missed that part of my post.

I would like to know where you got the so-called Bush quotes. This is the first time I've heard people actually use quotes--where did those come from? I hope not a hearsay opinion piece, because that wouldn't lend much credence to those so-called quotes.

I was actually joking with you when I made the *shopping spree* remarks. I know you are much too intelligent to actually go and do that. You may, in my opinionm be a little misguided by your emotions but I know you're not that stupid. I'm sorry you cannot see humor in someone discussing this topic with you. I'm even more sorry that you feel you have to label everyone who disagrees with you as uninformed and unthinking. People will have different opinions with you on many issues but that makes them neither stupid or uninformed. Have a nice day...
I am not asking you to discuss Israel. sm

I know that it happens all the time.  I am sorry that it does.


I refuse to discuss

religion with Moonies or Scientologists.  There is just no common ground.  The same way as I refuse to discuss politics with people who actually consider Fox a news station.  They are indoctrinated and innoculated from the truth by daily coordinated talking points to distort any event (such as saying Charlie Gibson looking down his nose at SP or was too rough on her) to favor their desire to keep the corrupt repubs in power. It's a waste of my time.


 


 


Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
No, I don't argue much. I discuss or
post articles I think would be interesting to people on this board. I try not to tear down the people who post, either, not like some on this board. They have their opinion, I have mine.  
No, I don't argue much. I discuss or

post articles I think would be interesting to people on this board. I try not to tear down the people who post, either, not like some on this board. They have their opinion, I have mine.  


Your idea of a reply very often isn't up for discussion. You seem to think it's the only one that matters. End of discussion.


Okay - let's discuss the $9 mac and cheese.
Personally, I love bacon crumbs on my mac and cheese. Anyone else?
What do you expect? You just come to antagonize not discuss.

A time to dissect and discuss a war...
is after your military is at home and safe, if you want to debate it pubically. The time to discuss the war and how you as an American feel about it is in private until they are safe. If you want to discuss it while they are still at war, discuss it in town hall meetings. Discuss it at your house. Discuss it at Wal-Mart. Discuss it in your front yard. Write to your congressman. But do not do it publically while men and women are still fighting. You are entitled to your feelings and to express them. However, common courtesy, in my opinion, should keep a person from going public while men and women are still fighting. All that does is embolden the terrorists. They have said so themselves and it is pretty obvious that it does. I saw an interesting report on it this morning, how that is the number one *battle front* for AL Qaeda now...just feeding the propaganda machine with the daily stuff from the American public. Frankly, I don't think that is anything to be proud of. But that is just me.
Sam does discuss issues and gets attacked for it.
nm
What about parents who don't discuss with their kids?
And so you know right off, I'm not a Barack fan nor McCain fan. However, my own personal beliefs aside, I believe "it takes a village to raise a child" and there are FAR too many parents NOT doing their jobs these days, which forces schools, governments, etc. to jump in to help. I see far too many parents who'd just as soon go to the bar than raise their child. There are parents who are apathetic, and there are parents who are embarrassed or ill-informed themselves to teach their kids sex ed. I don't think sex ed is a problem at all in school, so long as it's in the context of health education and not presented to students in a biased manner of some sort. It IS how mammals reproduce and therefore does have a place in education.

God gave us free will and if you try to control the free will of someone else, how is that right? I believe in consequences of free will when someone chooses wrong, which is why we have laws in place. I don't believe it's any one person's or party's place to tell another how to live their life, period.

Personally, I'd like to see more parents do their jobs at home so gov't and schools didn't have to do it for them (and all the rest of us too as a result), and sure, ideally I'd like to see more kids abstaining from sex altogether. But I'm also a realist and know that my beliefs and willpower aren't the same as everyone else's. That's what is supposed to be great about USA.

The reality is that not all kids have the willpower to abstain in the heat of the moment, no matter WHAT their upbringing or what wonderful parents they have. As you said, it's everywhere - on TV, movies, ads, games, you name it! It's in their face now more than ever, so to ignore it and act like it won't ever happen isn't the answer, either. No, I don't know what the answer is, either, but I don't think that's it.

Also, to take away any access to sex ed and/or birth control at all is in a sense forcing the ideals/morals of one group of people on another and basically taking the free will of the other group - how do you reconcile that? I'm being sincere, as this question plagues me often when considering these issues.
I never meant to discuss the money -
my point, Kendra, was just that these kids can already be treated without their parents consent, that that part of it was nothing new.
Honey, I would glady discuss this

with you privately. Since you seem to be so well-read, as I am also, we could have a great discussion on this subject. The market can easily be manipulated by speculators and the outrageously rich to sway political minds. When the market is down it favors the dems, it's a fact. When the economy is good, the current administration gets the credit; when it's bad the same also happens. You don't think that can be manipulated at all?


My own humble opinion on why O will be elected are these:  The economy, hatred of Bush, white guilt and uninformed voters, period.


Maybe she just doesn't have anything to discuss with you....pitiful
nm
I like it here. Besides, mostly all they discuss there is current events. Imagine that. nm

Well pardon me, but how can you discuss the present without a history of sm
what shaped it?  It isn't possible.
Well, by all means lets discuss pertinent
xx
Of course, because it takes high thinking to discuss
//
Why don't we discuss the Republican candidates for a change?
This is just like a dog chasing his tail!
Don't worry JR - very easy to trounce them AND discuss the issues.
They're dumb, and they lack conviction, and they do most of the work of exposing themselves for the lackeys they are so that we don't have to spend much effort at it. I mean case in point - that the Freepers would even THINK it was a good plan to tie up liberals on chat boards to keep them from grassroots organizing. Hey, if they can get paid for it more power to them - but sheez, are they really that stupid? Or, just that desperate, heh.
Why don't you discuss like an adult instead of throwing temper tantrums?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
It's like trying to discuss Dante's Inferno with someone stuck in My Little Red Reader. nm
nm
We'll discuss that crime when Bush et al are done with their trial.
nm
Who is your top democratic candidate?
Barack Obama is who I am rooting for, but I'd like to know what democrats are thinking about the other candidates.
Who do you think will get the Democratic nomination

And, what do you think the Super Delegates will do?


voting democratic



CI'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe everything the main stream media tells me about the Presidential candidates.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq , I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar icecaps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm thinking abou t voting Democratic because oil companies 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% (federal and state) on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because they know best how to run a mortgage company like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They will guarantee I get a low interest loan even if I don't have a job and can't pay it back.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I agree that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac executives should get 10's of million dollars in bonuses, then leave and join a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign as his advisors.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it?




You cant thank the democratic congress too.
nm
way to go democratic congress
nm
Can the Democratic Party Survive
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2005/shore022805.htm
Democratic talking points 101. nm

Republicans and democratic are worlds apart
One party represents BUSINESS. the other PEOPLE. That is the bottom line.

You americans need to get your two parties together without the politicians around and figure out how to come to terms with your disagreements cuz you folks are on the same ship and it is sinking and only the rich have a paddle.

Want us Canadians to provide a neutral ground? We are very concerned about the runaway train that has become America. It is like a bad movie.
Exactly, that is the common thread in Democratic...
party these days. And the only way to end that stalemate in Waashington is for that, for lack of a better word...crap to stop. McCain and Palin are reaching across the aisle, saying they are willing to work with democrats to stop the stalemate...country first. McCain says he wants Democrats and Independents in his cabinet. Country first. This election is a no-brainer for this Independent. McCain/Palin.
'scuse me...have you read the democratic...
posts on this board?? lol.
My Lord, what do you expect from the Democratic rag, the
Washington Post? Give me a break and the rest of us here. Why don't you read some real new for a change?

Did you know that just a tiny bit of arsenic can make you deathly ill?
Impeached by a democratic majority?
What YOU smokin?? lol.
Tell that to the democratic congress - they are responsible
And while people are getting laid off left and write the democratic congress who gave the bail outs are not giving back any of the money. And the people who ran FM/FM are not giving back any of the money. And the money that was given for the bail outs but instead the people used it to take lavish vacations and put more money in their pockets are not giving it back, and the DEMOCRATIC congress is not enforcing that they should give it back.
58 +/- 2 democratic leaning indies =
jangled nerves over this one undecided seat. Cornyn is hedging no bets and preparing for the worst case scenario, rather than simply letting the state satisfy itself that it is sending the duly elected representative to Washington based on the most accurate vote count possible. Why is that such as scarey proposition? How much traction do you really think the obstructionists are going to have in the Senate anyway. Not all the pubs are onboard with administration sabotage. Some of them actually remember that their constituents expect them to get something accomplished and to wait until at 16 to 18 months before starting to campaign for their next race.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM


Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg


Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003


U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.





Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake


By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.


Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.


The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.


Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.


During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.


There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.


Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.


And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.


Voted to back Bush


In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.


Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.


After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.


Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.


While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.


The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.


Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.


Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.


The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.


But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.


A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.


He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.


Norm ... has agonized


All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.


Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.


In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.


Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.


By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.


We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.


By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.


That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.


Growing doubts


On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.


Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.


That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.


Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.


Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.


The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.


Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.


The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.


Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.


The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.


Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.


But he added, We can't take forever.


Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.


I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.


Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com



Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:

1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.

I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.



And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:

Stand up to whom and why?  The Congress is run by Republicans.  Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional. 


He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist.  If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them. 


This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans.  A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists.  He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies.  He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy.  He just can't be trusted, period.


None of the top tier of Democratic candidates will commit...
to having the troops out of Iraq during their 4 years.  I know some of you have posted that you would not vote for Hillary for that reason.  What if she is the candidate?  Second question...if none of them are going to end the war immediately and that seems to be a major issue for most of you...I assume you are going to vote for one of them anyway...whichever one gets the nomination?
All this is all well and good and right down the Democratic party line...
the fact is...a few months ago Joe Biden said: "I would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain." Last night he attacked him. So...take your pick. He was lying then or he is lying now. He lied. Perhaps you are impressed by throwing friends under the bus, lying or whatever it takes to toe the party line. I am not. I think it shows marked lack of character. To each his own.

Questioning his experience is not a personal attack, spineless or otherwise. You could leave the spineless personal attacks on people who disagree with you to the side, it might make someone more willing to listen to your viewpoint. What I have heard him say in interviews, what he has said himself, plus the marked lack of foreign policy exposure and experience in his resume do cause me pause. Yes, I admit it. The fact that I fear he will fold like a house of cards if someone gets in his face is a concern. It really does not matter to me if you are sold on him...I am not. And that should not be the basis of an attack on me from you. THis is exactly what I am talking about. Obama supporters attack anyone who does not agree with them. Thank you for making my point.

By all means though...STAY LOYAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE PARTY. Friends under the bus, lie, whatever it takes. I get it.
Case in point...what a democratic view....NOT.
YOu have been exposed for what you are, and in typical spin, turn it on to someone else and make them the villain. You guys are like the Wizard of Oz...one head and lots of little bodies running around. :)
Who supports Obama? Everybody in the democratic party
it appears. I was a Clinton fan as I know she takes care of business and knows how to get things done in the Senate and Congress.

McCain and Palin will lead us to a supreme court nominee which will be a republican and we cannot afford that.
Tracks for both sides. Obama is more of the democratic same...
and John McCain has never been a toe the line Republican. Republicans will tell you that.

I post links most of the time. How is that twisting and manipulating words? How is that making something come out the way I want it to? Good grief. lol. If you see something that I post is twisted or manipulated, refute it. No one is stopping you. The best you seem to have is to attack me. Why is that the first line of democratic defense? Oh yes...the Alinsky method. If you can't refute....attack. lol.
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm


http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/

Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.




Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
I'm voting democratic to relegate ignorance like this
su
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
Plus the democratic congress. Get your facts correct.