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

So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm

Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-25
In Reply to: My God! Where have you been? Are you just dense? - look it up.....not hard to find

nm


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

Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
I love democrats! I love most of the past democratic presidents (sm)
I would love for there to be a good democrat I could vote for. I want good leadership and I want change. But I truly believe to purposely ignore a symbol speaks volumes. He is not just asking the symbol to wait, he is ignoring it on purpose. Avoiding it on purpose. Why do you think that is? There is a reason. Can you not see it?
Look to the leader of USA for past 8 years GW BUSH nm
n
Dems have already felt that way for the past 8 years...
Get over youselves. It's not fatal.
You mean the ones the dems have had control over the past 2 years
.
The DEMS ruined our economy for the past 2 years.
nm
No, we are IN the toilet, and guess who has been in office the past 8 years.......sm
SELECTIVE AMNESIA??
Nope - who's been pouring the Kool--Aid for the past 8 years?

Better to be right than look stoopid. If you check other posts, you will REMEMBER why the pub faithful were accused of drinking the Kool-Aid.......


Love, love, love John Stewart. . .

the bit about the open microphone on McCain during the debate was brilliant!!! I laughed until I literally cried!!  By the way, Michelle Obama was warm, intelligent, sincere and very much First Lady material!!!


Please enlighten me...

I say all life is sacred or no life is sacred, no exceptions. You say ** it works for you but not for me and everyone knows it.** You will excuse my reference to Darwinism here but there IS a missing link.  I also believe that all deaths matter, or no death matters at all.


What I am trying to say is every life, no matter when you believe it begins or ends, is sacred, EVERY life, that includes every living breathing person on this planet, even those you really really really don't like or those who have created heinous crimes. All life is sacred or no life is sacred, no exceptions. God, not you or me or W is the real decider.


Now, please advise how did you get from my  simple statement the idea that this **won't work for me and everybody knows it.**


Enlighten....
It is simple. What I meant is, it is a war of words, and how you read it and how I read it are two different things. Either all life is sacred or none is sacred, but you qualify that with life, no matter where you say it begins or ends. We separate right there, and will never agree. The quote is qualified...meaning, all life is sacred or none is sacred does not work for you unqualified. You said: *What I am trying to say is every life, no matter when you believe it begins or ends, is sacred, EVERY life, that includes every living breathing person on this planet, even those you really really really don't like or those who have created heinous crimes.* I agree with that, but substitute life with soul. I do believe every soul is sacred and the same in God's eyes, no matter what the person in their humanity has done. I certainly believe that a man convicted and sitting on death row for unimaginable crimes, should he repent and accept what God offers, his soul should be in Heaven right along with every other soul in Heaven. That, however, not absolve him of crimes committed in his humanity for which he has to atone in his humanity, according to the laws of the land (as the Bible states), be that imprisonment or execution. If we do not like the laws of the land, then we need to change them the way we change any laws, through our representative lawmakers. However, in order for that to work, we need to make sure judges stop legislating from the bench. That is WRONG.
I don't. Enlighten me. nm
.
Enlighten me please
Just what is it that you're "trying to get through" to me?
Please enlighten me since you

obviously know everything....how many detainees have been through Gitmo and how many have been "tortured." 


Sounds to me like you have no sympathy for those people who were killed execution style by a former Gitmo detainee.  All you do is consistently show sympathy for terrorists.  Or is it just the fact that the people killed were Christians and so you don't care since you have obvious hate and disdain for anything associated with God.


Bush made mistakes and if you have your way...him and Cheney will be swinging from the nearest tree in no time. 


However, how can you be so blind as to allow Obama to hurry up and close Gitmo with no place for the detainees?  Do you want them all released?  Do you want them sent back where they came from so they can start up killing Americans again?  Or how about we put them in our own prison systems so they can recruit within our own country and then later be released here in our own country?


It seems to me that you seem to forgive them killing thousands of Americans in an act of terrorrism and yet you keep harping on harsh interrogations like that is worse than murdering thousands of Americans.  How sad you are!


Maybe you should enlighten yourself....
actually be taught properly, there would be such an uprising in this country, it would put the civil rights uprising to shame!

His website is where the parents go to get homework info, children's grades, etc., and he actually lets them know EXACTLY what is going on in the classroom.... isn't it strange all the parents really like him? Always that one pathetic lost soul who just wants to find problems to gripe about where there are none...


Please enlighten me as to what it means.
Considering we will never leave Iraq if Bush plans on placing a permanent military base there.
Nope, Enlighten me.
I could be an Obama supporter, for all you know.
Please enlighten us. Elaborate on just how
present some logical argument that addresses just what Obama has to gain from race card politics.
Care to enlighten me? sm
Webmedx has always said that they are 100% American owned and operated. If you have proof to the contrary, please present it.
Perhaps you should enlighten us on precisely
x
Please enlighten me with your wisdom.

How do you handle this then?  Terrorists who want us dead and will do anything to accomplish that.  How do you deal with them?  What is the source?  Do we all convert to their religion?  What?  I'm curious as to what your solution is for this mess.


I still would like to see Obama go after the CEOs of these big  corporations and banks the pocketed loads of money and walked away from a failing business.  Why aren't they being investigated and tried for what they have done?  Instead of we going after the past administration even though dems knew what was going on.


As for your information about Mohammed giving info until the harsh interrogations.....there are two sides to this story and until everything is released and looked into, all you go by is what MSNBC says and the rest of us go by facts.


Nancy Pelosi and other dems were brief on these interrogations and they did NOTHING.  The government has only allowed part of the information to be unclassified.  There is still other information out there that they have not brought to light and seem to be not wanting to bring to light.  Wonder why....hmmmm.


The reason behind terrorist attacks is because they are Muslim extremists who believe their religion has called them to rid the world of people who aren't Muslim.  No tea and cookies and friendly talks is EVER going to change that. 


I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation.  Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel.  They are not allowed in and out.  Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate.  They have no means to get supplies in and out.  A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people.  Supply and demand.  Simply economics.  Those who can afford things get them.  That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy.  Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with.  Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small.  That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders.  Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.


Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO.  Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east.  They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them.  Poor little Israel can't get a break.  Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs.  Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old.  You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around.  Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is.  Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death.  That's what's occuring.

Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments.  Israel doesn't like that.  It's a threat to their tyranny.

Extremism exists on all sides.  Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up.  Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.


He/she passed first lesson - lie.
NM
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.

1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).

2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.

Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
I think it all shows that Christianity is valued with the love of the dollar, not the love of Christ
x
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are

3rd grade civic lesson
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08

Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.


The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.


To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.


The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.


She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.


Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.



Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT.  Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the economic crisis suffered by
There is nothing in your chart or context that convincingly explains away the $559 billion dollar surplus Clinton left behind when his term came to an end.

Having said that, most Americans will agree that, when compared to the past 8 years, the middle class enjoyed a prosperous decade in the 90s. I was able to pay off my condo, so it has been foreclosure-proof under W.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
xx
When you have a bipartisan version of the bill to view...please enlighten us. nm
x
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]

One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.

Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.

However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.

In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.

As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.

As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942

So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years.  Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date.  What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States. 

Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood. 


Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"



  • Anyone born inside the United States
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.


Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html


If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions?  The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms.  What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment?  I bet we would see some really mad women in this country.  Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President  can serve?  Can we say "dictatorship?" 


I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
For this you have to wait at least 3 years and 8 months , maybe 7 years and 8 mohths...nm
nm
I love the class of liberals....just love it...
ignore the truth and attack personally. Shows a lot of tolerance.
"it tells me to love them as I would love myself"...(sm)

This must be why you so obviously love Muslims? 


You do realize that you contradict yourself on just about every other post you make?  ROFL..


Not quite- 2 years Catholic, 2 years Muslim. NM
X
They never WILL learn - that's what's so sad.
their same mistakes over and over again, because they just can't envision any other way to do things or to address this country's problems than what's been done for the last 8 years. They're so obsessed with running round and round, trying to out-shout everyone about their 2 loser candidates, while simultaneously trying to convince us (and themselves, maybe) how the Christian way is the ONLY way, that they can't use their brains (or their mouths) for anything else.

What hypocrites. If they sling mud and bash a candidate, it's 'god's will'. If the dems do it, they're 'evil-doers'.

All I can say is, if the blinder-wearers get into the White House again, then 'lordy, help us all'. I'll sure be scrutinizing, & wondering about, every jet that comes in a little too low over my city.
Everyone up there should have to learn
xx
you can learn a lot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany