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

With respect to "the brush," didn't...

Posted By: Marmann on 2009-04-17
In Reply to: I wonder if he'll be allowed to take the famous brush!! - penny

...he say recently (I'm paraphrasing here) that he'll still have the brush, but since he's no longer governor, the brush will be smaller.  LOL!


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

"The Spew" lol. perfect. I have lost ALL respect for
nm
With all due respect, I didn't bring up white racists (which I know exist), I was talking about s
the people who are zealous about white power and who will feel compelled to do something bad about a black president. I know it could go either way, but my post was stated because of the high probability that our next President will be black. I understand you completely when you say that there are white racists.

As for Louis Farrkhan, my college roommate was a member of the Nation of Islam and was so racist. She once told me that the reason white folks have those red dots in their eyes
when pictures are taken is because they are all evil and are satan's children. She truly believed that. It was very difficult living with her and I tried to get a transfer out of there, but couldn't and had to put up with A LOT of racism from this black woman. So, I know all about reverse racism.

You are the one woh needs a brush up.
When the electoral college "overturns" the popular vote, it happens because the delcared victor has won the states with the most electoral votes....the way Obama has done with a WAY more than ample margin of 192 PROJECTED electoral votes. There were 3 times this happened, not 4 as you claim(did you read your own article?). The 4th time was when the electoral votes were tied and the House of Represenatives decided the election (1824). In the other 3 instances, the widest margin of difference between the popular votes was 3.1% (in the 1876 election)...less than half the 6.8% margin Obama holds over McCain. The popular vote margin of difference in 1888 was only 0.8% and in 2000, even less at 0.5% (with considerable help from a little fraud and voter suppression here and there).

So the answer to the other poster's question would be NO, in history the election has never been overturned by the electoral college with this wide of a margin....NOT EVEN CLOSE. That would make her premise valid....you'd be grasping at straws. Suck it up. Obama is our next president.
YOU, whoever your are, should brush up on your history!..nm
nm
Better brush up on your French, Sirpercy.

Tit-for-tat. Tsk, Tsk. Time to brush the teeth.
su
You need to brush up on your civics/history.......... sm
And for the record about 5% is not a large margin.

The electoral college has overturned the popular vote 4 times in history and some of the "politicking" that went on in those days rivals what we have today.

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/September/20080905143744ebyessedo0.8026239.html
My, we sure are painting all conservatives with a broad brush...
I have criticized Bush on numerous thing, including this pandering to the Mexicans in regard to our border control.  Please don't assume every conservative is just a lock step mindless zombie.  Lots of people say that about liberals, but I disagree with that too.  There are a million shades of gray, across both sides of the political aisle. 
Don't paint all Dems with the same brush. There are extremistis...sm
in every party, repubs and dems alike. This is a sick joke, not worthy of anyone with any intelligence.
He should have been clearin' brush in Crawford, doggone it!
You betcha!
I wonder if he'll be allowed to take the famous brush!!

You know how you hate it when conservatives paint libs with the same brush? sm
We don't like it either.
To "the truth is out there"

I tried to email you and don't think I had a problem, but please check your email to see if you received anything from me.  (Hope so.)


Will be leaving the computer for a bit but will be back later this afternoon.


Have a great day! 


"The great unwashed??"

American citizens practing their right to free speech.


 


Jon Stewart - "The Miami Seven" sm
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/tds-the-miami-seven/
Describing Sam as "the pub bully" says all I need
nm
In "The World According to Sam", the Dems are
They caused the 9/11 attacks. They caused World War II. They caused Jesus to be crucified. They even caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. When the sun finally burns out and implodes upon itself, that'll be the Democrats' fault, as well.
"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
"The Living Dead" Yes, perfect!
nm
I remember "The Grit!" It was a great
little newspaper, akin to USA Today.  He used to sell it at the neighborhood grocery store when he was about 10.  He was a real go-getter and really funny.  He died in 1997, miss him, but I want to thank you for the memory :)
Obama truly believes he is "the one". McCain would
nm
Oprah calls O "The One". The man is a politician,
nm
"The truth about South Ossetia"

Remember in the last couple of months when McCain announced, "Today, we are all Georgians"?


I think Putin is taking a "wait and see" approach to the new USA President.  Bush has certainly heated up the "Cold War" during his eight years in office.  While there is not much reason to trust Putin, there's even less reason for Putin to trust the USA.


We can't forget the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and, more importantly, the sequence of events related to that conflict.  I would encourage anyone who has forgotten that Georgia was the aggressor (with our help) to click on the link below.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia


 


Bush, "The Decider" still has time

to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.


I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).


O'Reilly, etc. are not "the regular news."

Try watching the morning news at 6 a.m. or during the day until 5-6 p.m. That's the news I'm talking about.


O'Reilly and the others are like Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, and all those other fellas. They are more like a political talk shows. That's not news.


I meant I saw "the" post below - oops
Try getting out on the other side of the bed is right.

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

But guess you just like to plagarize what other people write.
John "the fundamentals of the economy
NM
John "The Economy is doing Well" McCain? nm
x
Right. "The people" that he cares about so darn
nm
Ogden Nash..."The Rhinoceros" - sm
The rhino is a homely beast,
For human eyes he's not a feast.
Farewell, farewell, you old rhinoceros,
I'll stare at something less prepoceros.
I sure wouldn't mind having that car! ("The Beast")
definitely come in handy for those times when I have to drive through East Oakland and the Raiders have won,
or in San Francisco during Critical Mass. A hood-mounted bazooka wouldn't be half bad either, for those massive tieups on the Bay Bridge.
;)
Read PK's post below that begins with "The key words are"

"The reign in Spain falls mainly on McCain".
nm
"The First thing I will do as president is sign the FOCA" sm

The Audacity of FOCA



BY The Editors



As the election quickly approaches, the U.S. bishops are shining a harsh spotlight on one bill: the Freedom of Choice Act, commonly called FOCA. FOCA is again before Congress; its chief sponsor in the Senate is Barbara Boxer and one of its co-sponsors is presidential candidate Barack Obama.


In July 2007, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Search YouTube.com for the words “Obama” and “FOCA” to hear it for yourself. Since Obama has said that signing FOCA into law would be his first priority as a new president, summarizing the bill answers the question: For what change does Barack Obama have the audacity to hope?


The U.S. bishops’ summary of FOCA points out:


• It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.


• Some states require that women be told about the risks of abortion. FOCA would erase all informed-consent laws states have enacted.


• Many states require that parents be informed and sign off on their daughters’ abortions, just as they are informed and involved in every other surgical procedure. FOCA would override and end all parental-involvement laws.


• Some states have laws promoting maternal health. Obama’s FOCA wouldn’t allow them.


• Regulation on abortion “clinics” helps keep these businesses responding to health and safety concerns. FOCA would end these regulations.


• FOCA would disallow “government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion,” say the U.S. bishops.


• Conscience-protection laws would end. These currently allow Catholic and other pro-life hospitals, doctors, medical students and health-care workers to opt out of participating in abortion in many places.


• After FOCA, any laws that prohibit a particular abortion procedure, such as partial-birth abortion, will no longer be in force.


• FOCA would also strike laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician.


For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel, or a summary fact sheet to distribute, see NCHLA.org.


In a Sept. 19 letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, raised the bishops’ concerns about any possible consideration of FOCA.


Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. It would also “counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”


Yup - that's what I thought "The O" is spending over 170K on his coronation
Real good logic there. NOT
and "the polls" said Kerry was winning on election night
but you probably still think those polls were correct, so I just wasted my breath.
I hope President Obama is watching "The View". sm
T. Boone Pickens is on there -- he is one brilliant man, and President Obama needs to pay attention to that this man has to say!!
Oops, meant "not clueless." Perhaps I'm not clueless but need to brush up on
nm
Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2


Wow, common sense!!


With all due respect,

all the posts I've seen you post have come across to me as very confrontational.  You seem to be limited to posting only posts that defend these three, and I haven't seen you post anything on any political issue -- just confronting posters and complaining about their behavior, sympathizing with poor AG, Nan and MT.  That's ALL you've posted on this board, and to say it was YOU who was attacked shows, at the very least, the very same mindset that precludes you from seeing things objectively.  Afraid I have to agree with GT above.  I, too, smell a conservative in liberal clothing, and it also wouldn't surprise me if you were either one of those three or one who is very closely allied with them.


But I will take you at your word that this is your last post.  In addition, I will make this my last post to you.  I'm happy that at least temporarily we're free of all the intolerance and hatred and rage and battles that ensue when those three are around.  I refuse to get back into that, and I feel that you're trying to take me down that path, and I'm not buying it.


Have a blessed day.


With all due respect.
One source is a personal blog. Those are strictly opinion pieces and carry no weight on either side.  The Chicago Sun piece is more interesting, but merely makes vague statements without a single name of anyone who is bashing.  Now don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns with President Bush, stem cell research not being one of them.  I am alarmed at the big government policies and also at the illegal alien fiasco (which I am reading has some surprises in store).  At any rate, this really is a nonstory.  Remember when Lieberman gave the speech on the Senate floor criticizing Clinton.  It happens.  I feel no connection to the country club wing of the republican party (any more than the country club wing of the democratic party).  They certainly don't speak for me.
With all due respect..

... it doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would use his service -- his putting his life on the line -- in order to try to bully, shame and coerce people who would rather see her son home with his family and safe.


It doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would sacrifice her own flesh and blood because she's too busy worshiping a very false idol in Bush.


But most of all it doesn't say very much about a president who couldn't care less about her son, a president who has recklessly, negligently and uncaringly tossed America's young people into harm's way for an unnecessary, very possible illegal war.


I honor her son, and I respect his courage very much.  I thank him for putting his life on the line in service to his country.  And I profusely apologize to him for the way his life has been devalued by Bush.  Maybe if Bush had the integrity and courage to actually serve in a war himself, he wouldn't be so hasty about killing our young people.  Her son, by virtue of having the courage to serve, is way, way, WAY above George Bush in the integrity and courage categories. Wouldn't we be fortunate if someday her son went on to become president?  He's already more fit to serve than Bush is.


I hope and pray that he can return home to his family (where he belongs) and that his return is safe and without injury.  I'm just very, very sorry that his mother can't see that just because we don't worship an idiot like she does, that doesn't mean we don't support our troops because we want them safe and home with their families instead of fighting an unnecessary, immoral war.


No respect
No respect for the owners of this board who have requested republicans/conservatives to not post here..Do I have to report you?
With all due respect...yes you did...
you posted that you loved to find the errors and do the research. That certainly implies that you enjoy trying to prove people wrong. And that is fine, if that is what trips your trigger. Again, what I said was we had more social programs, and again, the comparison to other nations, I would like to know what other nations and their population in relation to ours before I put a lot of stock in the data. Respectfully.
With all due respect...sm
*Civil debate* has not gotten us anywhere. In order for there to be debate BOTH sides would have to listen to each other, and meet somewhere in the middle.
With all due respect, I
disagree. I have read the words Dems and lefties and socialists used interchangeably. Look through the archives and I did not say it was you.
Respect
Well, I find the posts title a bit disrespectful. I mean, I wouldn't come to the conservative board and post with a title "Glad to not be a republican." Seems to me like "Me" was looking to stir the pot with that title.
With all due respect...
the moderator has posted several times that we can cross post. Apparently the moderator does believe in freedom of expression.

If "most of you" want to speak among yourselves, don't answer my posts, don't pile on with the crass remarks that are totally unnecessary. To coin your own words, ignore me. Quash dissent. Be intolerant of other views. To each his/her own.

There are those on the liberal board who do not mind a discussion and are actually able to do so in true liberal fashion without the personal gotchas. And as far as the gotchas...I only gave as I got. At least there were those true liberals who did not mind...but I believe you quashers have run them all off too.

So, if you do not wish to have a discussion, certainly your right. Don't answer my posts.

And...just a side note...liberal posters cross over too, and I have yet to ask them to get on back to their "own" board or stay on their own board. You see...I don't just say I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression...I act on it...unlike you.
With all due respect....
Your quote of:
"What is wrong with this picture? First, it should be obvious that it is not the job of the U.S. government to tell people what version of Islam to embrace on pain of permanent incarceration. As long as people are not committing or fomenting acts of violence, it is not our role to pressure them into changing their faith. When did it become acceptable to set religious conversion of any kind as the price that frightened people must pay for their freedom?"

These kids at Camp Cropper were committing acts of violence..setting roadside combs, firing at soldiers, etc. Your quote came from a different article about a different program dealing with adults...not with children. Two different programs I think. No one is asking them to change their faith. Are you saying that all Islam is radial jihadist? Of course it is not. These children are being taught by Iraqi teachers, not Americans. The article I posted describes it more clearly.

If it can turn a few away from jihad to what most Muslims call "true Islam," that is a good thing, right? If it can get sunni and shiite teens talking with one another, listening to one another, interacting with one another...is that not where change begins? Like you rightfully said, it was the young people in Venezuela who helped turn the tide in that country. Perhaps the same can happen in Iraq. Are you saying it is a bad thing to present these kids with a different view of Islam, that perhaps killing other Muslims is not a good thing to do? When it is presented to them by other Muslims, not by Americans? How can that be a bad thing by any stretch?

Again...we are there, piglet. Whether we leave now, next week, next month, or next year, we are there. Why should we not try to help while we are there? Like the soldier said...it is a positive thing and he is proud of what he was able to accomplish. If it turns one kid, two kids...they may be the future of Iraq. Someone had to start teaching kids in Venezuela another way...why can't we show those kids another way while we are there? If we can stop one from strapping a bomb to himself or getting his arms and legs blown off trying to set a roadside bomb...is that not a good thing? I don't see the down side to this. Honestly.
I have a lot of respect

for any man or woman in the armed forces.  I think that their opinion in our next president is very important.  However, even with military personnel, there are still going to be some of them who vote strictly because of race or political party. 


If our votes don't really count....this is pointless, but you can't screen people and question their motives for voting and who they choose to vote for and why before you let them vote.


with all due respect...
the only one WITHOUT a voice here is the child. We are speaking for the child. If that chaps you so severely, I'm sorry. No one is judging anyone. When Scott Peterson killed laci and connor, 12 people judged him and he is in jail for the rest of his life. It is somehow different because Scott chose to kill the baby instead of Laci? Please tell me how that makes sense. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill, and it certainly wrong to let one person have the choice to arbitrarily kill another. It is the act and the procedure that is being judged here...or that is what should be judged here.
Moral wrongs are judged by people every day. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Killing someone is murder. Cutting a defenseless baby to pieces with no one to defend it and nowhere to run to is horrific. At least admit it. If you want to give a person a right to murder another person, at least call it what it is.