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

That is always how socialism takes hold....

Posted By: sam on 2008-10-06
In Reply to: We all better study up on socialism..it's on its way - votinginde

promises, pretty speeches, and class warfare. How many posts have you seen here about "I am tired of the rich getting richer" and "we need someone to represent the middle class, not the rich" yada yada. It is already taking hold. And it NEVER works. All you end up with in socialism is all the money at the top (the government and cronies) and the rest of us at the bottom. The middle class DISAPPEARS. Look at venezuela...at Cuba...at the USSR before it broke up...and they will drag us all down the drain with them.

But mark my words...if it happens, won't be THEIR fault. Would be laughable if not so darned sad.


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

It takes so little to make you laugh - in fact, it takes nothing at all. NM
x
If you would hold your Dem Congress as responsible as you hold me...
THAT would be progress. lol.
whatever it takes to get what

you want.  Sociopathic, much.


 


If this is all it takes to silence you....
your "issues" must not be worth caring about enough to post. How is it okay to silence me...that's fine. But then you complain that I am silencing YOU. Is this glaring double standard somehow escaping you? Are you so unconvinced in your "issues?"
What little ambition it takes....
to follow me around belitting me. Make you feel like big stuff, all empowered and everything? lol.
I thought so. How seriously do you think anybody takes
Your first clue that this "story" just might be a tad suspect would be the fact that it is getting absolutely NO AIR TIME on any respectable media outlet.

We feeble O lovers (that would be the ones with the double-digit lead) have been using computers long enough by now to understand digital doctoring. Let's take a look at a credible source that has actually examined the birth certificate document:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

This is the second time this lawsuit has tried to pass muster, Miss out of the loop. It was discredited TWICE. What part of give up the campaign stunts (they are destroying your candidate's chances) do you not get?

They say it takes one to know one. I think we'd all better do a little praying. n/m
x
It takes an interpreter because someone is i
the statement. The are creating a tempest in a teapot.
Takes the cake is right,
as well as the mixer and bowl, the cake pan and oven.  You can keep the empty box, however....
All it takes is a hacker

to break those codes, passwords, etc.  It happens. 


This person comes over here takes a DUMP on us...sm
and you think someone is supposed to be chasing her down. I agree with GT, don't let the door knob hit ya.
Takes your money and blows it? NM
HA HA
She's got what it takes to stand up to the boys....
I'm working, so I don't have time to read through today. So if this has been posted before, please forgive me.

But if I had any doubts before about Gov. Palin, I think I've just been put in my place!!!


McCain aides whose judgment I trust are impressed by Sarah Palin. One was particularly amused by this exchange: A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she’d be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she’d be facing, etc.:

Palin: “Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?”

McCain aide: “No, Governor.”

Palin: “A hockey mom wears lipstick.”
It takes one to 'know' one, doesn't it?
x
It takes a male and a female . . .
to make a baby, but that is not what I would consider a heterosexual relationship. That's conception. My definition of a relationship goes beyond a plastic cup and a turkey baster.
This takes the CAKE (& icing)!

If this man will lie about a GI bracelet, what WON'T he lie about?  Come on, y'all! Wake up!


I didn't copy the entire thing (no no, right?).  It appears that you'd have to go to the site to download it.  Keep an eye out to see if the drivebys (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, etc.) mention it.  I'm hoping they'll have no choice.  There will be a ton of crying and hand wringing beforehand, you can be sure if it ever happens at all.


(H/T D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)


http://tinyurl.com/45q5r6
or:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/28/family-told-obama-not-wear-soldier-sons-bracelet-where-media
Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
By Warner Todd Huston
September 28, 2008  



Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program. (Download radio show HERE)    (H/T D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)


Anyone who takes Fox tabloid seriously is not worth it and
Fox is a one sided propaganda hateful tabloid. It's quite clear to the intelligent people of this world. Think about it for a minute. Sheesh. They lie. lie lie lie and Hannity is the worst one.
I hear you, sometimes that takes a little more time.
Siblings will be siblings.
McCain takes swipe at GOP

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6459397&page=1


McCain Takes Swipe at GOP on Blago Scandal


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD952J0Q00


McCain Pledges to Work with Obama on Tough Issues


He was GOP leader and candidate of choice.  He's is sounding a whole lot more like himself now that he is no longer attached at the hip to SP.  Why not take a page out of his book?    


More on Blagojevich issue:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/republicans_guilt-by-associati.html?hpid=topnews


Republican's Guilt-by-Association Gamble - An even-handed analysis


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081215.wibbitson15/BNStory/specialComment


Latest Smears Prove Obama Foes Getting Desperate - Another proponent of working together


If that is what it takes to close Gitmo
I think you are the one that does not get it.
Takes Americans a while, but they are starting to
nm
That one just takes a little common sense...(sm)
and a little fact checking.  You might want to try it sometime.
Umm. That is pretty doubtful since it takes about
nm
I hope globetrotter takes a look at your post...
because a more potent example of elitism I have never met!
that's a load of BS. It takes 2 to tango and a woman
how to use protection. it has nothing to do with a man. If she decides to terminate her pregnancy it's her own decision. the minute a man can have a baby then it's his.
It seems "Barack" takes credit for a lot and blame for nothing.

The debate takes 2 hours. Have it in Washington if that is...sm
where McCain feels he needs to be.
It takes no effort at on on the part of 'cleverness'

Of course, because it takes high thinking to discuss
//
Obama's tax plan basically takes away any
nm
Easy comeback. But, you know, until Obama takes
nm
Let's talk again if (and when) he takes cons. advice

NOPE.OBAMA.TAKES.THE.CAKE.
George Bush was a better President on his worst day than Obama has been on his best day. Period. End of song.
Takes 1 to know 1- Love the Palin drama
Well, looks like the 2 lovebirds are at each other's throats now (Levi and Sara's gal). Levi is now making the rounds talking about how he was moved into the Palin household several months before they split, sharing a room with his gal and now Palin's people are coming back callling the Johnston clan white trash. Of course the same claim came back from Levi's folks against the Palins. You talk about a hypocrit, Sara Palin, preaching but not practicing what is being preached. I love all this drama myself.
Not just mistakes, he is being criticized for every breath he takes!!! nm
x
Jesse Ventura takes on Fox and Friends!

A true American hero, a former SEAL who underwent controlled waterboarding as part of his training, OWNED Fox and Friends.  Well done, Governor, but I doubt you will be invited back on Fox in the immediate future.


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/19/ventura-schools-kilmeade/


 


Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
IMHO, Wilson discredits himself, if one takes a look at the facts.
x
That way I'M not paying for Shaniqua's 9 kids every time she takes them to the ER.
v
One that doesn't care if it takes voter fraud to
xx
*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending

 


WSJ.com OpinionJournal



Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span:  Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid.  In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have.  I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.


PEGGY NOONAN


'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.


In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.


hspace=0


George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.


This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.

Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.

Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.

As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.


hspace=0


Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.


A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.

The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.

Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.

At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.

Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?

The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.

But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.


hspace=0


Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.


First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.

Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.

Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.

The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.

Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.

Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.

Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?


hspace=0


At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.


But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.

I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.

The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.

Well, they probably can, short term.

Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.


hspace=0


Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.


If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;

If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;

If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;

If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;

If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?

And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?

It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



 


Lets make a bet on how long it takes dems to turn
nm
Yes, we can always hold
more people see through the BS. Bush & Co. certainly are out in full force *catapulting the propaganda* and swiftboating anyone who disagrees, so who knows? Hopefully fewer people will buy it this time.

I'm sure your grandchild is the cutest and smartest!


You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.

If you hold with J, that should be enough. nm
nm
We should not have to hold him up. He should hold
nm
Well hold onto your hat.....(sm)
because I know of 3 pub senators who are planning to say yea (despite threats from the GOP).  LOL.
Socialism
AMEN!!!
The era of socialism
With the bailout by the US government, each and every one of us will be mortgage lenders to the tune of $7000 per taxpayer.  We will officially be socialists, brought to you by your favorite political party the REPUBLICANS. 
what's so bad about socialism?
bring it on!
You won't get socialism. That is #1....
and frankly my greatest concern with Obama.

McCain is the only one talking about reforming Washington, freezing spending except in crucial programs until we get out of this mess...he is talking about more affordable health care, not government controlled health care. Yes, Obama says you can keep your employer insurance and if you can't, the government will take care of you. HOw long do you think employers will be able to offer insurance under Obama's socialist agenda? Not long, because he is increasing taxes on them. And not accidentally either. One step further down the road to socialism.

And I am ready for naming names and showing some responsibility. Unless Obama is an id*ot, he knows that Dodd and Frank are up to their eyeballs in this mess. He should call for their resignations. THAT would show character, which seems to be important to you. The democratic leadership instead PRAISE them for their roles in engineering this bailout. That to me is a total LACK of character. McCain called for the resignation of the Republican involved...Chris Cox. THAT is character.

I see absolutely nothing but a downhill spiral in an Obama administration. The USSA. Venezuela north. NO thank you.
Not only socialism....

he is not even President yet and his campaign and followers are practicing big-time intimidation.  That reporter in Florida had the guts to ask Biden a hard question, the campaign says no soup for you!  Cancelled the rest of the scheduled interviews.  Said they would not be given access in an Obama administration.  A maxed-out contributor to Obama's campaign ordered a background check on Joe the Plumber...just an average American who asked Obama a hard question.  People have been threatened when they say anything negative about him.  What are these people going to do if they get REAL power?  Food for thought.