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

Have you ever wondered where Tony Blair went?

Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-11-08
In Reply to: "most of the world" hates us? - Kendra

Case in point.


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

Ever heard of Tony Rezko
Do your research.
Biden also has ties to Tony Rezko...

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/joe-biden-has-ties-to-tony-rezko/


Blair

Do these conservatives realize that Bushs buddy, Blair, whom I have read they admire and like is a socialist?  He is a socialist democrat, LOLOLOLOL.  His ideology is to unite Europe and help each other.  Not a very conservative way of thinking.  


socialist blair
He is a socialist, doesnt just tend to sway that way..He is a socialist, LOL.  Gee, I thought socialism, you know, help each other, my bread is your bread, sure I will donate or pay taxes to set up programs, run by the government, to help those less fortunate..Socialism..the same thing you fight against in America, Social Security, without private accounts, Medicare, and many more, all programs set up by democrats.
Could Tony Blairs Tight Fist be Coming to a City Near You...sm
I ran across this article today and it explains from British citizens point of view what happens when you allow leadership to dismantle the principles (Constitution) of a nation. I understand the *concept* behind the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and detainee laws (where the president is the decider), but if the public lets the powers that be slip in laws like this with no protest we could find ourselves under arrest and DNA swabbed for not returning a child's ball that landed in your yard.

(Long read but interesting.)


The Way Police Treat Us Verges on Criminal

Guilty until proven innocent now seems to be the watchword of a government that increasingly treats its law-abiding citizens with absolute contempt

Henry Porter
Sunday October 29, 2006
The Observer

A father and his eight-year-old son got off a train at Blackpool on a Friday evening two weeks ago to be confronted by a number of police officers moving passengers towards a scanner. There was a mildly threatening manner about them and it was clear that they expected everyone to pass through the scanner, which they said was being used to search for knives.

The man, whose name is Danny, quietly told the police that unless they had a very good reason, he would not be searched. One or two passengers hesitated, then joined him in refusing to go through the scanner. The police were clearly disgruntled, but couldn't do anything because Danny was right: they had to have reasonable grounds for suspecting he was carrying a knife in order to search him. 'I am not some rabid left winger or civil libertarian,' he wrote in an email to me. 'It just seems we are allowing a police state to be developed without an argument.' On the phone, he seemed to modify this by saying that the police behaviour had been oppressive.

Thank God there are still people like Danny who know the law and understand that part of its fragile essence is the respect for the rights of the innocent citizen when confronted with authority. The British Transport Police may insist that its Operation Shield, as this random trawl is known, is for the common good in that it fights knife crime, but think twice about the attitude it betrays and you realise that it is another small erosion in the esteem for the individual. Such behaviour makes everyone a suspect.

Tony Blair talks incessantly about respect, yet there are few who have done more to degrade authority's respect for the public. Nowhere is that better seen than in the behaviour of the police, which gradually becomes more coercive and imbued with the idea that we are all bad hats until we prove otherwise. We now live in a country where the idea of wrongful arrest has become a historic curiosity and where anyone can be arrested for the slightest offence and compelled to become part of the government's DNA database.

We live in a country where young boys - one was just seven - are taken aside and questioned for trying to knock conkers out of chestnut trees on public ground. Where a grandmother whose neighbour accused her of not returning a ball kicked into her garden was arrested, fingerprinted and required to give her DNA. The police went through every room in her house, even her daughter's drawers, before letting her go without charge or caution.

Where two sisters can be arrested after a peaceful protest about climate change, held in solitary confinement for 36 hours without being allowed to make a phone call, then told not to talk to each other as a condition of their bail. As this paper reported, their money, keys, computers, discs and phones were confiscated, their homes searched.

There is much more, all of it enabled by Blair's laws and encouraged by a vindictive and erroneous contention that defendants' rights must be reduced in the pursuit of more and quicker prosecutions. Our prisons are full, problem teenagers are, by default, exiled to a kind of outlawry and every citizen becomes the subject of an almost hysterical need by the authorities to check up on and chivvy them.

The government regards us not just as wedded to too many regrettable vices - smoking, speeding, drinking too much, eating unhealthy food and taking no exercise - but also as innately prone to law-breaking. Perhaps with good reason, since, according to the Liberal Democrat homes affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, some 3,000 criminal offences have been created by Labour. The more crimes there are, the more criminals there will be.

Mass surveillance has begun on our motorways and in our town centres. Metropolitan drivers increasingly find themselves pressed into numberplate-recognition camera traps on the same principle that inspires Operation Shield. Everyone has something to hide unless they can prove otherwise, which is why the police also enthusiastically pursue samples for the DNA database. (Incidentally, by next year, the total number of profiles will rise to three million, one in five of which will belong to black people.)

The police are in their very own heaven and demand more and more powers of instant justice, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. These will allow them to crush people's cars, issue more on-the-spot fines and ban 'undesirables' from any area they choose without having to go to court. Even parish councils are to become part of this culture of minatory bossiness. Instead of having to apply to central government to introduce new bylaws, they are to be given powers by Ruth Kelly, the Communities and Local Government Minister, to levy instant £100 fines for skateboarding, not cleaning up dog mess, busking and, no doubt, scrumping for apples and playing Pooh sticks. How will it end - with CCTV cameras watching small boys for inappropriate behaviour in the vicinity of horse chestnuts?

In his frantic terminality, Blair plans the sinister information-sharing index, otherwise known as the universal child register, and last week was musing that we should all have our DNA stored on the national base. Link this to his earlier remarks about identifying problem children who might grow up to be a menace to society by intervening before they were born and you begin to feel the chill of the technology-driven authoritarianism.

What runs through all this seems to be a rather surprising dislike of the British people. It was once possible to believe the government's unusual attention to law, order and behaviour was benevolent yet ill-conceived. Now it looks more like the result of late-onset sociopathy, influenced by a long period in power and the degenerate entanglement between Downing Street and the seething red-top newspapers.

The prevailing account of Britain in the current political establishment has become deeply pessimistic and, to my mind, wrong. Yes, we have problems with home-grown terrorism, loutishness, a swelling underclass, unintegrating minorities, but there is another story. Britain is also a success and it should occur to one of our political leaders to defy the orthodoxy of decline and compliment the nation on its adaptability and deep reserves of virtue and toleration.

Think of the charitable activity in this country, of the level of public debate that wells up in BBC programmes such as Any Questions, the deep interest in history, the eagerness of the audiences at arts festivals all over Britain, the humour and generosity of spirit, the commitment to local communities, to understanding each other's needs and of the array of passions and hobbies which absorb so many millions of people whose quiet, law-abiding fulfilment as Britons goes undescribed by the furious negativity of the moment. It is these people, with their stored-up virtue and unself-conscious decency, who the government seeks to turn into suspects and infantilise by its morbid intrusion.

It is not the government's business to encroach on our experience as individuals in a democracy, to threaten us with so much oppressive legislation and always to assume our guilt. But there is another reason and that is because we are soon going to have to have the debate about individual liberty in the context of rapid climate change. That will only work if the government treats us like adults and says: 'Look, this is potentially the greatest crisis civilisation has ever faced and we need your help.' The resulting contract must be between equals - the people and the state - and in a relationship where respect flows both ways.That, ultimately, is what this nagging and suspicious government threatens.

Bush's BFF Blair says he will resign sm
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/britains-blair-says-hell-resign-within-a/2006090609330990008?ncid=NWS0001000000000
I don't read the NYT. They lost all credibilty with Jayson Blair. NM

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq...sm

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq


But Leaders Say War Was Justified



Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01



President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair last night acknowledged a series of errors in managing the occupation of Iraq that have made the conflict more difficult and more damaging to the U.S. image abroad, even as they insisted that enough progress has been made that other nations should support the nascent Iraqi government.


In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate tough talk -- such as saying bring 'em on in reference to insurgents -- that he said sent the wrong signal to people. He also said the biggest mistake for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. We've been paying for that for a long period of time, he said.


Blair, who visited Baghdad this week, said he and Bush should have recognized that the fall of president Saddam Hussein would not be the rise of a democratic Iraq, that it was going to be a more difficult process because you're talking about literally building the institutions of a state from scratch.


While Bush increasingly has begun to acknowledge missteps in handling the war, his comments last night -- together with Blair's -- represent his most explicit acknowledgment that the administration underestimated the difficulty of the central project of his presidency


Obama's poor judgement...Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Tony Rezco..
Jeremiah Wright, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac big bucks. We could both go on and on. All politicians are crooked to some extent. Face it, neither one is a great candidate, we have louse options on both sides this time. Fortunately, whoever does win will only serve one term.
Yes, have often wondered about this...

I remember the nightly news on Vietnam with all the photos of stretchers and wounded and ongoing battles.  It made all of us think, "golly, we have to stop this." 


But the thing that really bothers me is the lack of major non-TV news coverage on Iraq.  If I didn't know better, up until the 14 marines getting killed recently and thus lots of coverage, I would have thought no one had been killed or wounded in Iraq in quite a while.  RARELY does Iraq even get mentioned on the major internet news sites I follow.  If my relative were killed over there and it didn't even warrant mention I'd be angered.  I surely do wish we could find out why the war is so poorly covered!!!  Anyone know?


Often wondered why

the US doesn't teach a secondary language in schools.  I remember having some high school kids come to my elementary and teach us colors and numbers in Spanish and I still remember that to this day.  However, when I took Spanish for two years in high school, I barely remember a thing at all.  They really need to start with the young kids and continue it all the way through school.  I mean, we have English class every year of school and that is the language we speak and yet they expect us to speak fluent English or French by two years of class in high school.  I don't think so.  I truly wish I could speak another language.  I would particularly like to learn Spanish fluently and sign language.


If I went to live in another country, I would learn their language.  So in that respect, I think people coming to the US should learn English as well as. 


I wondered that, too. Whatever it is
messed up her brain. Unless of course, it was all Republican propaganda she keeps spewing.
Has anyone wondered this before?
I'm sorry I'm posting left and right tonight, DO NOT take 5 hour energy! :-D

Okay I just had this thought, and it's a scary one. Even though I don't want Obama for president, I pray this doesn't happen. I know we have all probably considered that Obama may be assassinated if he wins. While the majority of America is past race and what not (I hope!) there are a crazy few out there that would go to any means necessary to make sure we don't have a black president.

Well, what if Biden was chosen because the democratic party knows this is going to happen? Well not knows, because that would just be evil, but has a strong feeling? I mean I just can't see Obama choosing him personally after him saying "on the job training" and "I'd be honored to run with Mccain and the country would be better off" and all the other Bidenisms. What if they are just using Obama as a poster boy?

Sorry, I guess I have a little bit of conspiracy theorist in me.

Anyways, not trying to start any wars, just wondering if anyone has ever thought about this? javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
I wondered where you'd been, sam...

I haven't watched the board much, but normally a hornet's nest is easy to find once you post anything.  Then they just dog-pile on.


If you want to see some really neat stuff, go to lauraingraham.com and see these:








SMART PEOPLE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN ང
We are starting a viral movement on YouTube to show the world that smart people are for McCain/Palin. Visit our YouTube Channel that we set up and Laura's video.

Please upload a video reply to Laura's video stating your academic degrees/credentials and current professional position, and then simply conclude by saying: "And I'm voting for McCain/Palin ང."

Let's make this a force on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCD4LpR4i7k
Permalink | ShareShare | E-Mail


I too have wondered about this
I already have 20K in student loans and I haven't even graduated yet. I took a year off to take MT classes at the community college because I needed something that paid more than $7 an hour. I'm probably looking at at least another 20K to get my bachelor's, and since I want to get to my PhD in psychology one day, who knows how much more. I am trying to save money and pay my way without taking out loans, but as I'm sure you know something always happens and that money you saved is gone!




Wow. I just wondered where you
I did check out the DHS website and see nothing alarming to me there. In fact, I saw a number of very positive things. Sorry to have bothered you.
You know, I have always wondered if s/m

pot-stirrers wandered in and out of these forums just to rile people up on these controversial issues.  I hope you're right and it's not an MT.


Yes, people are all too willing to accept things at face value and not question and that makes it much easier for subversive factions to weaken and destabilize a system of integrity that needs to be protected.  I don't understand it when I hear people say that the CIA doesn't lie, or that government officials would never betray the trust of the people, but history has proven time and time again that it happens all the time.  Power and greed are insidious entities and unfortunately our society is rampant with it.  I have believed for a very long time that there are a whole world of things we don't have a clue about and, God forbid, the proverbial caca will hit the fan when those things come to light.  It's not a conspiracy theory or paranoid thinking, it is a reality.  There are two types of people:  Blissfully ignorant and painfully aware.  I was burdened with the latter  Gee, what type are you?


Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out' sm-long article
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out'

· Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May
· Plan follows pressure for exit strategy


Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday September 25, 2005
The Observer



British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.


Oh, Observer. I wondered where you'd been. sm
By the way, 'sm' means 'see message' (as opposed to 'nm' meaning 'no message'). Doesn't mean 'small message' as far as I know.

I agree with that last paragraph that kitty wrote. And I don't know where you're getting your statistics either, because poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion remaining legal during the 1st trimester. Less (but still a majority) are in favor of abortion remaining legal up to the 2nd trimester, but not after that.

What I get from your posts is that when someone mentions 'abortion' you picture a healthy, full-term infant of 9 months' gestation, angelic and cooing happily in its crib, being viciously 'murdered.' Obviously, that is not what takes place when the pregnancy is under 3 months.

Me, I picture a cluster of cells that may or may not have gone on to become a person. After all, it's been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion ('miscarriage'), usually w/o a woman even knowing she was pregnant. And in fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages. That is just human biology. Are you weeping and wailing for all those 'children'?

I don't believe there is any suffering of the embryo in that case, or in a 1st (or even 2nd) trimester abortion, but there is *plenty* of suffering of the unwanted children that are already here on this Earth and being abused and neglected.

Make safe, medical abortions illegal, and that suffering will grow exponentially with more unwanted children, as well as more women who will die or be injured during an illegal, unsafe abortion - because abortions will still take place.

IMO, on both 'sides' of the issue, we should all be working towards reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies in the first place by demanding better education, better birth control methods, and better access and affordability to birth control.

If you've ever wondered how
Hitler came into such power.....you are looking at it right now.  Such a smooth transition with blind followers and before you know it.....we have dictator Obama. 
I've kind of wondered about this
because my stepson's great-grandpa on his mom's side has always been strictly democrat.  If you mentioned voting for a republican in his presence....well....it got kind of ugly.  However, I don't know what he is doing this year....and am too terrified to ask him personally...lol.....because he is also a prejudice sort of old man.  So will he vote democrat and stick with his regular party or will he refuse to vote for a black man?  Makes you wonder how many racism democrats there are out there and which way they will go.
Good one, gourdpainter. I've often wondered that myself...nm

I've always wondered the true family ties here
;?