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

I meant to post this link in the original message

Posted By: Factcheck is not a credible source on 2008-11-29
In Reply to: GP - how many times do we have to repeat - Factcheck is not a credible source

Really connects the dots

http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/




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

Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html

By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
Oops, meant to post link also
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898_pf.html
I meant rather than funding ABORTION, which was the point of the original sm
poster's concerns - that the US family planning money will go overseas to provide abortions. If that $ is being spent anyway, shouldn't we be spending it on contraception?
original message regarded

the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media.  Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive?  you can't have it both ways.


 


Was referring to original link about OOPE.
I did take look at her section about alleged McCain attack, where Obama was contrasting his tax policy to McCain's and simply stated the truth. This is not attack. It is a statement of the obvious.

Malkin is the poster child for PMS, trite and petty. That's what makes her articles so easy to overlook.
I mean ignore the original posters message
Not mine of course. :-)

I am all for freedom of speech and letting us decide for ourselves. Obviously the OP is not.
See my above message. It was meant for you. (nm)
x
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
Sorry...meant to put a message inside....sm please
I think we should declare a moratorium on the election talk in light of the fact that his family has suffered this loss of a loved one. Anyone with me?
That's what I thought you meant - see message
I didn't realize that when my husband and I married it was a "special" right. That's what everyone wants. These are not "special" right. They are just the same rights as everyone else. Do you consider people of color who want the right to go to school with white people "special rights". Rights are rights. It is a human right to want to marry the person you love.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.

You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.

Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.

And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.

They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).

So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.


Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated

is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied.  He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.


John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?


Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.


People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.


I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.

As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.


post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts.  It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Sorry, wrong hear - meant here. No tickets please! no message
X
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.

http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html


The original Pledge of Allegiance


I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.


On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.


At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.


It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!


In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.


Thanks for link (just now getting back here). No message.

This was a great link and fun to do - see message
My #1 match is Chuck Baldwin (constitution party) 55.32% Hooray! Good to know I really am an independent. My second match was McCain at 44.68%, then Bob Barr (Libertarian)at 40.43%. Next was Ralph Nader, then Obama. Loved it, glad to know that Socialism is way down on my list.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
Oops - forgot the link in my last message - sm
Here it is...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG928.cfm


Link opens to a message that says the page cannot be found.
Do you have another link to this page?
Sorry....I meant for the above to post under Teddy's...
post below titled Viet Nam and WWII...sorry.
Re-read your post...what I meant was you posted...
you said he had breakfast with OBAMA bin Laden, not OSAMA bin Laden. Clearly you did not mean to..just pointing out that you did indeed type Obama, not Osama. Just like Teddy Kennedy said in speeches twice...Obama bin Laden instead of OSAMA bin Laden.

And what kind of proof do you have that Bush Sr. had brunch with bin Laden? Maybe a member of the bin Laden family, but certainly not Osama. Good lord. LOL.

And just as an aside...what proof is there that Bush Sr. was having brunch with ANY of the bid ladens??
I meant I saw "the" post below - oops
Try getting out on the other side of the bed is right.

I was referring to the posts saying "Please do not feed the troll", and "Back under the bridge, Troll".

But guess you just like to plagarize what other people write.
I understood perfectly well how you meant your post..nm
nm
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
No need to post a link. I believe you. SM
I just wanted to know. 
Hey, post the link gt....nm
x
Can you post a link?
I've somehow missed this one. Thanks!
Sorry, just had to post this link

This is why people are voting for the O.


 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8


So you post a link you don't believe
And you expect no one to comment on that? Really?
See my message under the post below (nm)

Above post should be see message.
xx
I think your post would have done better - see message
on the faith board. Your stating your views based on your religious ideas and values and that is all fine and good, but that is where this post belongs. If you post there I'm sure you will get a lot of the support you are looking for. It sounds to me you didn't want anyone to oppose your viewpoint. You labeled them "ugly responses", my viewpoint on reading them is that they are how other people feel about the issue. Because they don't agree with yours of course they seem "ugly" to you.

Also reading your post above you say you now know Jesus is real, and you stated "...I can tell you that I pray God forgive you for your blindness and hate just as He forgave me when I surrendered my life to Him." etc, etc, etc. That is your faith and like I said that's all fine but it is your faith-based opinion and beliefs, not everyone else believes the same way you do. Again if you take it to the faith board you will find the much support you are looking for.

Your last paragraph you mentioned that someone made a choice of life for me. Yes they did. I had parents who wanted to have children and hence here I am. The statement "why would you want to deny that for another innocent baby" That statement is just silly. You'd rather see a child spend 18 years or more living a life of he!! in a drug/alcohol induced family situation with the possibility of being abused emotionally or physically. You'd rather see a child feel unloved and unwanted. That's a little sadist if you ask me. If the embryo is aborted there is no one to feel like they are being deprived of anything.

As for you calling our president "evil"???? I don't consider someone who is fighting for woman to have the right to choose evil. He celebrates death instead of life????? Oh please, sorry but that statement is not going to win you any support here.

BTW - I may not agree with some of the presidents policies that he's passing, but in no way is he evil. Again, that is another "faith-based" emotion and belongs on the faith board.
Show me the post. Link please. sm
We may have in the past, but not lately, Teddy.  Lies?  Gosh, you like that word.  A lie is an untruth. You just ordered someone from the board.  That is a board moderator's job, not yours.  Hardly a lie.  A factual observation I would say. 
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/