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 refuse to forget history...can't afford to be "condemned to repeat it"

Posted By: Mrs. Bridger on 2009-03-12
In Reply to: Bush....they will still blame Bush. - Trigger happy

He created this cluster with his cronies and they should be held accountable.




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

Those who refuse to learn from history..... sm
are doomed to repeat it.  The following is a link written by an elderly woman who grew up in Nazi Germany.  See how many dots you can connect. 

http://carylmatrisciana.com:80/x2/content/view/74/1/
Will history repeat?
If Senator McCain is elected, wonder what excuses will be used to keep him away from the convention in 2012?
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
*
if they can't afford their house, they should find one they can afford
and move out. End of story.
Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.

So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.

If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.

As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.

I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.

As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.

So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.

I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.

Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.

On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.

The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.

I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.

So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
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.


 


 


I'm sorry you refuse to see their teachings as
I can give you confession after confession of Muslims who have denounced those teachings once they were free from that country. They admit they are teachings of hate; even though they believed some of them were similar to Christian teachings, they couldn't understand why they were taught to hate by their teachings. I can give you many who say this....but of course I suupose you will say they don't know what they're talking about either.
Pay close attention to a paragraph under the head of Christianity and Islam, where he quotes a verse from Sura 5:51......and what he has to say after that.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/abdul.html
But they refuse to understand.........
He has yet to prove citizenship.... and for those that say he IS a citizen, even if he were born in Hawaii, his stepfather (who is Muslim) adopted him in Indonesia. Once he was adopted by his stepfather, his stepfather renounced Obama's U.S. citizenship. The United States does NOT recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia....never has in the past either. Indonesia does NOT recognize dual citizenship, so Obama cannot have dual citizenship. The only way to reclaim his U.S. citizenship is to go through the Immigration Dept just like anyone else, fill out the necessary paperwork, and wait for his hearing. He has no paperwork to prove that either. He knows he does not. If he did, all he would have to do is show his immigration papers but he can't because he doesn't have them.

You can only have dual citizenship with a country that allows that. Obama's stepfather renounced Obama's U.S. citizenship and claimed him Muslim, as was his father. His stepsister even says he is Muslim through and through....

Now, that being said, supposedly Indonesia had tried to begin a new dual nationality law as of ག or so, but Obama hasn't filled out any paperwork for that as an Indonesian either. As of གྷ the new law in Indonesia had not even been implemented. There is a lot of red tape and still many who object to dual nationality allowances.

Our law says in order to be a "natural born citizen"..

The U.S. Law in effect during Obama's birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of Fourteen (14) in order to register the child's birth abroad in the United States as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.

Either way.....he AIN'T a citizen of this country....
I refuse to waste my

time reading biased, inaccurate opinions. Got a prob with that? Yours only.


 


I did....you refuse to accept it.
Go tweak someone else for a while.
No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore
because you can't be anything but condescending and ugly. 
I refuse to conform and I just don't fit in," .......so he was fired!!

 'TOO PATRIOTIC'??  That's reason for dismissal from a job?  What the h@ll is this country coming to?   


 


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=576612


 


 


I was trying to illustrate that you REFUSE to see what's in front of your face, that you must twi

it and turn it and manipulate it until it becomes something completely different and ugly, and you adopt THAT as the truth, when it isn't even close to what the real truth is.


Three fingers are three fingers.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  No hidden meaning.  Just three fingers that the rest of the sane, intelligent, reasonable WORLD sees and recognizes as THREE FINGERS, as I said in my post.


A simple "I refuse to hear the truth" would do.
What Conyers is doing is playing by the rules. This is a HJC hearing, not a congressional hearing. There have been a number of ridiculous restrictions on what they can or cannot say imposed on this process. For example, they are not allowed to utter the word "impeachment" and Bush's name in the same sentence. Absurd. In spite of all the obstacles, he opened the hearings and has vowed to see it through and to bring the truth into the public discourse once the investigation is concluded. He is quite aware of the fact that he is putting his reputation as a senior member of Congress on the line, so it would make sense that what goes on there is compelling. He is doing nothing to distract or circle around THE ISSUES. He is moving the process along. He is chairing the committee. All the details of the restrictions, who put them there and why, Conyer's position, etctera, can be found in the numerous links that have been provided and is well summarized in DK's interview.

The difference between him and you? Are you serious? He is familiar with every single player, position, stance, viewpoint, piece of evidence and rebuttal. He is a fact checker. He is not considering this evidence on the basis of hearsay. He is evaluating the integrity of the proof as it is presented. You, on the other hand, say you know all you need to know because you have "heard it from other democrats." In other words, you are not willing to even listen to the prosecution case or its evidence as it is presented directly from the source. Instead you talk all around what is really taking place inside those chambers. You are still doing it, trying to twist this into something it most definitely is not. Here's the deal. When you can't win on the issues, out comes the smear and smut.

No one said anything about your having made anything up about Niger. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make this about that one single subject. There are literally scores of talking points and hundreds of pieces of evidence to sift through. You are not the least bit interested in any evidence. If you were, you would watch the interview and post you rebuttals. You're not doing that. You are obsfuscating. It's what you do. What possible difference could it make in terms of valid claims and conclusive evidence whether this process occurs in formal or informal impeachment hearings? Truth is truth. Proof is proof.

You are not interested in hearing from all the witnesses or seeing all the proof. Exactly the opposite. You want to see no witnesses and no proof, unless of course it backs your own contentions. Stop trying to imply that the process is rigged. In the post 9/11 politics of fear world, the republicans would classify the White House address, if they could get away with it. Preponderance of the evidence usually is all that is required to achieve majority vote. If that evidence is incomplete, you have the republicans to thank for that. Do you really think that all that info held in secret is vital to national security? The only thing it is vital to is covering the neoCONS behinds.

You doest protest too much. More obstacles. Be honest. This is not about you want this and you want that. It's what you DON'T want that is plain to see. You don't want to face the reality that they just might be onto something. Another pot shot at Clinton. You really think that lying about an affair is a more serious impeachable offense than misleading an entire nation on the reasons for going to war? One thing is for sure here. As long as you continue to refuse to view the process as it is happening, instead of what you speculate about what may or may not be going on, you really do not have any way to justify anything you are saying about it. You say you have heard what DK has said. Okay. Did you watch the interview? What was in it? You must have skipped over the stuff about the live blogging from inside the chambers. The information is available for those who are interested. Go to the links. It's all in there….including information on how to follow it on a day-to-day basis.

Since the rest of this post has disintegrated into non-stop personal attack, I will not waste my time with it. Clearly, you will not engage yourself in any direct, honest, informed dialogue on this subject. This is still about your comfort zone. This just goes to show how extremely intolerant you are whenever anybody tries to challenge your ideas and how terrified you really are with what might be coming out of those chambers.

Just ignore them, ms, obviously they refuse to read the whole thing....nm
x
And yet you STILL refuse to condemn child sexual abuse!

When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards.  Still, there was no response.


You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.


Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse? 


I guess we can leave it at that.  You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.


And THAT speaks volumes.


Yeah, guess Obama supports refuse to look at all
nm
Yeah, agreed. Obama supporters refuse to see his
nm
JM does think they can afford to pay
nm
that's probably why I can afford them

We Can't Afford Not To
Tax cuts alone will not make a dent in our worsening economic crisis. I agree that the stimulus bill had to contain some tax cuts, if only to appease the Republicans. Do you agree that the stimulus bill should've actually been bigger than what was presented?

The last eight years of tax breaks for the wealthy has shown us that it just doesn't work.

The package has to contain both short-term and long-term stimuli to be effective. For example, infrastructure investment needs to be in building bridges and railroads, etc. As it stands now, it's for fixing potholes.

You may not "like the idea of our government controlling so much," but the alternative is a depression far worse than the Great Depression, with vastly more global political unrest on top of it.
It's actually more distracting to refuse to do someting that is a traditional symbol of our count
You are an American, right? You better enjoy your free speech while you still have it.
Facts are always called opinions by the left when they refuse to acknowledge them...sm
The facts within the article are true. No matter how much you want to ignore them.


You are so blind.
Soldiers and peace officers pledging to refuse to obey sm
An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.

Link to article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91530

Oath Keepers website: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
Can we really afford to wait
until November to vote on this?  I don't think so.  Something needs to be done now.  I'm sure they will have a plan by the end of this weekend and it will be passed. 
i can afford my mortage NOW
why not help those who are trying to help themselves instead of penalizing us? i would much rather see them do some sort of bailout this way rather than bailout these mortgage companies. We need to get this economy going and IMO this may be a solution. If our economy keeps going the direction it is headed, only the ones who are already sitting fat are going to be the ones not hurting. My family has been blessed. I have a good job, my husband has a good job... NOTHING IS SECURE though. Our 401k is going down, as is yours I'm sure. As I said, I would like to see a compromise that doesn't cost all tax payers major money... Let the mortgage companies take the loss.
Yes! Of course they should have done that all along - apparently now they can't afford it ...lol
x
Soon, Kool-Aid may be all you can afford.
nm
Nope. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
If you can't afford decent housing without relying on government housing, food stamps, etc., don't buy those cars. When the cars die, you have nothing. When you have a decent place to live that you bought with your money, that's something to fall back on.
Can't afford it. Only own 2 pair. LOL (nm)
.
they can afford them over there, just not to employ
nm
I sure wish I could afford to buy a house right now!
Almost 1/3 of the houses in my small town that are for sale are foreclosed. They're all cute little Victorians, and I'd just LOVE to have any one of them.
if they could afford a television, they don't need a box!
the box is for older model TVs and for TVs where people don't use cable and still use an antenna.

My sister's mother-in-law's TV is 25 years old and she still uses it and still uses an antenna - she had to buy a box for her TV to pick up any stations. She would rather buy a box and use the working TV than throw it away and buy a new TV.
We couldn't afford for him NOT to run.
There is nobody else who could handle the multiple crises that President Obama is facing at this unprecedented time in our country's history.

The republican administration that has been in charge for the last 8 years practically destroyed this country from the inside out. Not to mention what he did to our internation image :-(

I, for one, am VERY glad that he decided that the country could not wait.
It common sense - if we can afford one
Simple as that.  You can twist it around as much as you want, but the truth is the money is there, and it is just about priorities.  I am not trying to personally attack you.  I have not resorted to childish name calling or anything like that, I just think your view is warped, and you obviously think my view is wrong, and we will obviously never agree on this issue.
What they couldn't afford was buying
that had no true value, and when the housing bubble burst, they were left holding worthless paper.
Ah, but will you be able to afford the electric bill?
I don't know about your utility bills, but ours are going through the roof lately.
Can't be too bad...you can afford a good Internet connection. sm
I have my doubts as to whether all your meals are hot dogs and mac and cheese, but I could be wrong....

....and there is work out there. You don't have to just sit there and let it dry up. And don't blame the 8 yrs of republicans. The last two years of democratic ruled Congress has been worse than the previous six before that.

You think you have it bad now.

Just wait till dems are in control of everything.


You'll have less than nothing, and have to give it away to others less unfortunate than yourself. However are you going to be able to afford that?
I STILL can't afford ten bucks for a loaf of bread...lol...not really lol..but ya know

Not jobs Americans dont want to do, but cant afford
nm
If bridge builders cannot afford the cost........ sm
of a movie ticket, then what good does it do to provide/create more jobs in that genre?

Folks are hurting and they can't afford their own homes, much less movie tickets and popcorn. I say let the movie industry take a little pay cut here and there and bring their multimillion dollar projects down to a more reasonable figure and bring the films in under budget.
Wont matter much - who can afford to drive
Price of gas will be back to $4/gal. - and THEN some - by next summer. Oil co. CEOs are as bad as the Wall-Street $$-ho's.
The issue is really about the tax payers who cannot afford healthcare - sm

Many of them do end up on public assistance due to health issues after having gone for many years without healthcare. 


History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
repeat - sm
If checking the adoption records is part of the normal background check, then the only reason this is a problem is because the media is making it one.

Again, and I repeat. sm
This is NOT how MJF is every day!  I thought I explained this above.  I am not diminishing the disease.  My mother-in-law died of it a year and a half ago. It's a terrible disease.  But he controls much of the symptoms with medication, which he did not take, or so the word was last night.  Now I am reading that he actually had overmedicated himself.  Now, having said that, you have proved my point about apologies. I didn't hear anyone on the left mentioning when the famous leftie Ben Affleck, made fun of people with cerebral palsy.  He never apologized either, that I know of.  But, of course, that's different.  It's only bad when conservatives do it.  It's bad all the way around, I say. 
repeat after me

fair and balanced . . . fair and balanced . . . fair and balanced . . . obama is a muslim .  . . economy is fundamentally strong . . . fair and balanced . .  .


 


Anything.... I repeat - ANYTHING! is better
Biggest embarrassment this country has ever had in office. Time for Retardo to HIT THE ROAD.
Let me repeat myself
Because you're not getting it.

"Where did I say in my post to watch Fox News"

Where??? It didn't.

"Better to stay silent and remain a food, then to speak and remove all doubt" - Benjamin Franklin
Looks like I have to repeat AGAIN -
Snopes.com is not a credible site to verify truths/falses. They have been noted time and time again to say something is false when it's true and vice versa. It is a site run by two very liberal people. So if I go and create a website with a relative of mine and we put up a bunch of false claims as long as it veers in the positive towards the viewpoint we like your going to start telling us that we are credible? I don't think so. If you want to believe Snopes, then you might as well tell people to go read it in the National Inquirer, Star or any of those other sites you can access on line.

Here's a repeat one more time for those that do not get it.... do not come back here and tell us that something is truth or fiction because it said so on Snopes. Research many many sites. Do not judge things just by a liberal or a conservative site. Read, read, read and judge for yourselves. Find out who is behind these websites and what agenda are they fulfilling. Then make up your mind.

I could care less that the article has to say right now. What I am telling you and others is that Snopes has been wrong about many issues time and time again. Do not believe them, or if you do pull up their site pull up other sites as well to verify information, but don't come here and try and tell us something is or is not true because Snopes said it was or wasn't. Okay, got it now???
I'm not judging. All I did was repeat what she herself said.
I don't wrap myself in the Bible and the flag and justify my actions by saying that Jesus doesn't care if I act like a hateful person because he forgives me for every single thing I do, giving me free rein to act like a thug.  I take responsibility for my own actions.