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

Require = force

Posted By: nm on 2008-11-09
In Reply to: correction -- YOUR imagination. - Marmann

xx


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

We could require passing an IQ and
It should apply to those wanting to have kids first, too!

BAHAHA ... I am KIDDING - please no flames. Just kidding!

Not all states require 2...most will take a DL...
and we already know that most of the illegals in this country have a DL. Not every state requires that you prove citizenship to get a DL. Some states will take one of those picture ID's you can get anywhere and let you vote. Some states don't require any ID and most certainly don't ask for a SS card. If they did, that would nix it in a heartbeat. I came from PA and they don't require an SSN, just a DL, and only once when you register. After that, it is never checked again. Where I live now they do not require an SSN. Only a DL when you register.
The key words are mandatory and require
This is not "volunteer". This is not "you get a choice". This is a requirement and you don't have a say.

Here is a statement about the Hitler youth's written by someone who lived under it:

School children were officially 'encouraged' to join by school teachers,
party members. parents, government etc.
It was a fun thing to do with marching, singing, drums, bugles, target
practice, summer encampments etc. Things a kid would love to do.
Members were selected for inclusion, those of doubtful ancestry were not
permitted to join, members were led to feel they were a of a select
group, the future of Germany
It was the right thing to do, there was little analytical divergent
outspoken opinion permitted or opposition to joining as there might well
be today, those that wouldn't join were suspect or at least viewed as
unpatriotic.
I can well understand the desire to join and those that did should not
be condemned.

Also, once you are part of this "civilian force" you will do as you are told. They may call it something to make you feel "patriotic", but it's just another branch of a different kind of military. Guess you could call it the Obama youths.
Does Obama's healthcare plan require
everyone to participate.  My husband is a state employee with family coverage for $17.00 per pay.  We have excellent medical, dental, vision and prescription coverage.  I am not interested in changing that.  Does Obama want to provide the same coverage for everyone or just provide coverage for those without? 
I don't require the advice of a popeyed pestilential poop such as yourself, thanks..
x
I think actually picking up a book might require too much effort......easier to blather......nm
x
OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.
O says that he will force insurance
companies to insure preexisting conditions. That sounds like something that will put them out of business to me. No need to buy insurance until you need it. Think of all the lost jobs.
PS, NOT ENCOURAGE, FORCE!!
XX
I don't believe I force people

to convert to my religion.  I don't kill in the name of my God.  I am nothing like the Jihad extremists and for you to say that is just absolute BS and you know it.  What you people seem to forget is that we are at war here.  A war were people want me and you dead.  I don't want to torture them for revenge but if we can get other names of people or any plot information to save American lives.....I'm all for it....including saving your atheist behind in the process.  Doesn't quite sound like I'm a Jihad extremists or I'd say something like blow your butt up too since you won't convert to my religion but I don't see me saying that.  So don't you EVER compare me to a terrorist. 


I see all the dems are out in force...keep it up ladies...sm
.....having a good ol' time ganging up on me....I have come to expect no less from the left on this site.

She's dynamite and will get rave reviews....wait and see....wait and see.....


Once again, a "civilian military force" that is

ENDORSED BY BUSH.


That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.


Keep believing all the hype and the lies.  That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.


There is no force involved whatsoever. I do it
because I "choose" to do what the Bible commands.  I love the Lord and want to do what His Word says.  There is nothing forced about.  If you don't think it's a sin, that is your perogative.  I, however, feel that it is and that is my perogative, too. 
I don't really understand the civilian force...
why not just beef up the military we already have? But, I don't actually think that it will ever happen, at least not to the extent that people are thinking and during Barrack's presidency. Americans will not allow that to come to fruition. It would take a very long gradual change for something like this to be implemented and accepted.
Does this help. Homeland security force.

KNOWN AS HOMELAND SECURITY FORCE, CIVIL DEFENSE.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y&feature=related


This is about freedom of speech being taken away.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_llXvTx5g


This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQ68jBGK8o&feature=related


 


From a founding member of Delta Force
http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3641046

'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush
By David Kronke, TV Critic
U-Entertainment
Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for Inside Delta Force (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for The Unit, CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against American Idol, The Unit shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.

Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.

We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of The Unit.

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say we, because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed � which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, Well, they do it to us. Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.

THE UNIT

What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.

---
David Kronke (818) 713-3638 david.kronke@dailynews.com
It's a beautiful thing to see dems out in force
nm
I see the Witches of Leftwick are out in force today....sm
just posting under different names.

Halloween must be around the corner.



wait for it......



.......the pig comments are about to be unleashed.....lol.....again.....
Civilian National Security Force...

These are Obama's words...


"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s


 


Civilian National Security Force
From FactCheck.org (Complete analysis at link below.)

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
Israel air force is ready to attack Iran

capable of making nuclear bomb.  I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran.  My question is if the US is going to help?  I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel.  I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states. 


The first 2 links are about Israel ready to attack Iran.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75885&sectionid=351020104


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455005,00.html


This is about Iran nuclear capibility as of today from Fox news. 


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html


They are also a viable grass roots political force
in the region, just like Hezbollah. How successful was Israel in trying to eradicate Hezbollah by bombing them off the face of the earth just 2 short years ago in Lebanon? The harder they try to suppress with violence, starvation, dehumanization, occupation and genocidal wars, the stronger those movements become. Israel is the consummate poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity.

Until the US and Israel have the guts to come to terms with the root causes of WHY these Islamic movements are gaining such traction across the board in the region, we are doomed to stay mired in the same atrocious tit-for-tat cycles of wholesale slaughter and human suffering. There seems to be an endless supply of that on both sides of the fence. The question is why and what can e do to effect a different outcome? Here's a clue for you. End the occupation.
SINCE WHEN DOES THE KORAN FORCE PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO ISLAM?..
Are you still living in the stone ages?
Big Brother is I believe a covert force infiltrating each and every one's personal lives without
their knowledge. That is hardly the same thing as a poster on an MT board noticing that 4 different names post the same thing. I think that is creepy.  I have been on this board for a long time and I recognize patterns, phrases that are repeated verbatim from far in the past, things people remember about me and say something like ***weren't you the one who ....*** and it is posted under a name different from the original. I leave Big Brother to our shadow government, wherever they are.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.





Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs




WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.


The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.


If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.


The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.


Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.


On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.


The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).


Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.


Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.


He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.


We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.


The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.












 
 







 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force
into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy.

Thanks to their last fiasco when they tried this in Lebanon, Hezbollah has an 80+% approval rating among Lebanese factions (13 points higher than O) and its support among Lebanese Sunni Sunni, Christians and Druze soared in 2006. Their demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors, especially in the aftermath of Israel's failed massacre, when protests against PM Siniora sent his approval ratings into a deep-6.

Hezbollah was given veto power in the parliment via the Doha Agreement in 2008 and under its newly formed National Unity Government, Hezbollah gained the Labor Minister's appointment and holds 11 out of 30 seats, or slightly over one-third alongside Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Maronites, Armenians, Shia, Sunni and Druz.

So you see, instead of giving Hezbollah the boot, Israel legitimized their standing the Lebanese government.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932008_Lebanese_political_protests
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/UnityGovernmentEN.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
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.