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

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

You are most definitely correct -

Posted By: me on 2009-03-30
In Reply to: ARE WE THERE YET? - Mythbuster

Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.

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

You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%.  Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs.  Social agendas come second to him.  Safety is 1st.  
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...

Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.

From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!

Yes, of course you are correct

However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers.  This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.

My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other.  That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S. 

You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.

Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.

Yes you are 100% correct!!!

By george you are right!!!  EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!!  Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings!  I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me.  I have authored every single post you read on here.  It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!

There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better.  Whew!  Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.

You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in

assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works.  At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned.  There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc.  Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout. 

The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas.  Every year my church does an angel tree.  Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas.  I wanted to help.  What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know.  So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids.  Come to find out....these kids weren't poor.  Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove.  The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me.  I felt used.  I so wanted to help people who really needed help.  Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time. 

Unfortunately you are correct. s/m

Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years.  Without the ability to strike, what can they do?  While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future.  Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut.  They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance.  Why?  Because they have lost members.  People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy.  Did anyone hear about them?  I guess not.  That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.

People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes.  American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years.  Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now.  Unions are no different than politics.  They are no better or worse than the people who support them.  Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together.  Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."

Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted.  JMO of course.

You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me.  I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end.  As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone.  The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning.  Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be.  Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it?  Certainly if she didn't McCain would have.  Why do you suppose THEY let it go?  Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that.  As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together.  Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US.  Hopefully more will follow.
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
I should correct what I said about
straight people.  I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage.  Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)

If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims.  And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything.  But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.

You may be correct that not all

However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget.  The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us.  Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens. 

Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century.  And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves.  Why didn't we get involved?  Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region?  Damned if we do, damned if we don't. 

The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades.   Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us. 

And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance?  Like Ghostbusters:  Who ya gonna call?  And we are expected to step up and take care of it.

I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered.  Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.

That is correct....(sm)

and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will.  This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation.  That's not the case now.  They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger).  They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay.  It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.

Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics.  It's not like that's been kept a secret.  Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.

Yes, you're completely correct. So we should do nothing to

only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.

It didn't happen here.....yet.  But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN.  And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.

Yes, I think I'm beginning to "get" it.

As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue.  I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.

So even the monitor can't correct you? NM

So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?

Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?

Yes, you care correct, however...
My point was simply that things are not black and white, or purely good or evil.  I'm also not sure why anyone would try to categorize someone's ethics or morals based on the political party they belong to.
You are correct. Please ignore
my above post. I was given incorrect information and failed to check its validity before passing it on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My humble apologies.
Almost forgot...all the others are correct TOO!!

The others that you mention -- they are correct, too (about being on to me).  Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by leaving them out.

Oops, that's right -- all those others are ME!!!!!

You are correct....others have....all over several blogs....
and another variation...Obama bin Biden. Don't agree with it, any more than I agree with going after candidate's families. Either candidate. Obama complained about people going after Michelle for her "proud of her country comment," said going after spouses was wrong, but have not heard him defend Cindy. Unfair if its Michelle, fair if it is Cindy. He's a politician and he is not any different than McCain in that respect. So much for change. Picked a guy who has been in Washington politics longer than most any senator on the hill. So much for change in Washington. Joe Biden a few months ago was saying he would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain. Ahem. Sigh.
You are correct...he wants to control...
the situation, questions asked, etc, because he knows he couldn't come up with any anwers on the fly without knowledge of them first. He told Bill O to his face after one of the debates that he would come on his show after the primaries...hmm, so much for Michelle stating in her speech that he was a man of his word. Anyone who can't answer the tough questions without being prepped and coddled is not ready to lead this country.
That is correct, ms. And I don't believe that your regular...
Democrat on the street agrees with this nonsense...at least I hope not!! But they are allowing the DNC to define their party as low-life attack dogs and this stuff is as low as it gets. It is orchestrated with the media hoping John McCain will drop her from the ticket because they are scared spitless they will lose in November. All I hear is tap, tap, tap...hammering nails into their own coffin. Who wants ANYone from a party with this kind of values or lack thereof in the white house? Not me. Not now. Not EVER.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there
You are correct about his plan not being...sm
socialized medicine. I don't think the majority of people have insurance through their employers anymore. If you don't you will be insured based on what you can afford to pay, and you will keep your own doctor. Vermont already has such a plan and it works great.
One thing you say is correct s/m

People have not and do not stay informed.  I don't like McCain, I don't like Obama either.

As for Lou Dobbs, I like his mouth service but I listen to what comes out of the mouths of his guests.....both Republicans and Democrats.  I don't believe ANYTHING I hear from a 3rd party.  I like to get my info directly from the horse's mouth.

Well..........I'll give it a rest for a few days.  We're off to Branson, Mo. for a few days of R and R.  Cheers to y'all!

this is the correct link - sorry

see below

Poster is correct
If someone gets on this board and says anything about Obama you don't like, O lovers go ballistic. They want facts, they get facts, and then instead of admitting they weren't aware, they just attack because that's all they got.

I'm not even republican and I can see how close-minded you are. You believe anything said about Obama is a lie, even if the facts are out there. You immediately call the poster a liar without even looking at the source posted, etc.

Please do not try to sound so open minded.....you are not!
You are correct for once...including the
Love it, how correct.
AHAAAAAA - your are correct - a big duh for me
I better go take a dinner break. - How embarrassing.

Sorry. I do know that Stephen Baldwin is involved in politics and is conservative so that's who I thought you meant.
You are correct - i put myself older than what I am
man there are days I feel 68. So yes I am 48 (thanks for making me feel young again) :-)

Now to figure out my generation again. :-)
you are correct - it's Os words and they still don't believe (nm)
Sorry, I want to correct my post...sm
Although my usage of the apostrophes is correct, grammatically the structure of the sentence is incorrect, it should be....

This proves exactly the philosophy of Kaydie's father.'
Yes, let us get our statements correct.
Special Report: Barack Obama: The 44th U.S. President

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama Tuesday held talks with congressional Republicans and urged them to quickly approve an 825 billion U.S. dollar stimulus package.

"The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation. The American people expect action," said Obama after meeting with Republicans.

"As I explained to the Republican House Caucus and I will explain to my former Senate colleagues, the recovery package that we've proposed and is moving its way through Congress is just one leg in a multi-legged stool," said the new president.

House will vote on the package Wednesday, and Senate committees began their own deliberations over it on Tuesday.

However, many Republicans turned against the large stimulus package. And after the meeting with Obama last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he and his colleagues told the president they feel the stimulus package is too expensive and too slow.

I personally think, Republicans do not have a chance with Obama. Look what our new president and the dems state about Rush Limbaugh. NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Must do what Obama says or he will back stab you. After he, Obama states, "I won and I will trump you."
Please correct me if I'm wrong but
I thought Hispanics and African-Americans weren't the biggest pals.  I mean...you watch these gang shows and prison shows on tv and all they talk about is the rivalry between the Hispanics and African-Americans.
That is absolutely correct...(sm)

Look it up.  People who recieve food stamps are poor.  Money in the hands of the poor and lower class means that they will SPEND it, whether it's in the form of money or food stamps.  That's why it has the best return for the dollar.  The tax cuts the pubs are proposing are for the wealthy (not the average American) and will be less likely spent. 

As I've said NUMEROUS times on here, we have tried tax cuts again and again and again, and it has yet to be effective in stimulating the economy.  It's like trying to run through a brick wall.  I've tried it 3 or 4 times, have a serious concussion, but hey, lets try it again. 

The whole problem with the economy right now (besides the housing and banking issues) is that people either do not have the money to spend or are not spending the money they have.  That means we have a SPENDING deficit.  So yes, food stamps are a very effective and quick way of getting that spending started again, unlike tax cuts.

On top of that, all the economists I have seen talk about this have already said they think the whole stimulus package, if anything, needs to be larger.  So, what do pubs do?  They take out spending (which is the whole point of the bill) and replace it with tax cuts, thereby making the spending portion of the bill SMALLER.  This is nothing but partisanship from the pubs.  They are so determined to have a say in this thing and stick to their Reaganomics philosophy (which has been proven to be ineffective) that in the process they are doing nothing but crippling the effectiveness of a package meant to help the American people. 

If this thing passes as it is now with about half of it being tax cuts, don't be surprised when we have to turn around and do it again because the bill didn't have enough spending in it.

You are correct - confusing
This whole war thing has gone on so long it is confusing. I'm not purposely trying to put wrong facts up there. I read it from a newspaper and also I've been hearing it on TV all day. All I remember throughout the campaign was him saying he'd bring the troops home. To me its all the same thing. I don't ever remember him separating the two regions, but like you say it is on youtube and I can research for myself which I will. But I about fell off my chair when I heard he's sending more troops and I never heard him talk about sending troops during his campaign. Like I said, and I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong. I just honestly don't remember it like this.

I will, however, not admit that I put up deceiving posts. I stated a fact. Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan, 17,000 according to the news source I read. I did not make that figure up.

Question for you though. Where are those troops going to come from. If you tell me that Obama is going to re-route them from Iraq to the Afghanistan, then I would have to say that is what I would consider a lie/deceit (my opinion - and don't shoot me for having opinions). He had many of us fooled into believing the troops would be coming home. My best friend told me her son (in Afgan. would be coming home as would her husband in Iraq). But if he doesn't re-route them and sending fresh soldier's over, then no it's no a lie on his part (IMO).

I also wouldn't be so quick to judge people for their beliefs. If I'm wrong I'll say I'm wrong but one other poster wrote "selective hearing". (I voted for the guy in the primaries, I believed in him back then). I don't know about anyone else out there but it can be real confusing. Just like the stimulus bill, etc, etc. I will however do some research and watch some more youtube when I get a chance.
You are absolutely correct. nm
Cyndiee, I am sorry, you are correct, we
do not know that Mr. Obama was ever addicted to the substance. He only admitted to having used it. We do not know for how long, how often, or even if maybe he still uses from time to time.

As I read back over some articles, most read as, like you say, he was young. And of course, like all of us, we do stupid things in our youth. This makes me even more angry! I was upset with the issue about Michael Phelps and this certainly doesn't help! He was chastised because he was someone special for our youth to look up to. Is this not a double standard?

Anyway, I certainly did not mean to be slanderous, nor did I mean to change the subject. I do think Rush paid his price for his addiction, as have members of my own family. He is right about 1 thing, the pubs need a candidate!