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, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!

Posted By: wowzer on 2008-09-24
In Reply to: See. Was that so hard? It is up to anyone who reads it... - sam

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

I just thought it might be nice to hear an original thought. sm
I guess I was reaching.
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Are you at all capable of original thought?
used on the forum today at least a dozen times. It has just about as much meaning in this post as it did early this morning....zero. Why don't you confine yourself to speaking on behalf of your own flock, 'cause you sure hs hades don't know what you are talking about when you try to speak for the other 69,456,897 fellow citizens who voted Obama into office.
Have you ever had an original thought in your head?

I mentioned above that a few weeks ago, someone had suggested that JTBB and I get a room, as follows:


What a suckup


Posted By: Get a room on 2009-05-31
In Reply to: Thank you for that, Marmann. s/m - the truth is out there


You've got something on your nose there, Skippy."


Now in today's ONE THREAD, the same "suggestion" was made twice.  So that's THREE times in two weeks that this weak "shot" was aimed towards me and/or JTBB.  If that old recycled BS is the best thing you can come up with, then you're beyond pitiful.


I don't need to "get a room" with anyone simply because I agree with that person, but it sounds like some of you could benefit greatly by placement in an asylum.


 


Perhaps the original poster naively thought
if not just for a moment, and share in a common human experience? Probably realized the post would be open to attack, but was hoping for the best to show itself....just once.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.

You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.

Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.

And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.

They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).

So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.


Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated

is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied.  He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.


John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?


Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.


People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.


I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.

As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.


Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html

By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots

http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/


Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.

http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html


The original Pledge of Allegiance


I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.


On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.


At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.


It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!


In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.


Pointless with you....you definitely don't take your
xx
pointless investigations like
White Water, White House travel office . . . .
Pointless to argue....maybe but
we sat idley by while Madelyn Murray O'Hair  trampled our "pearls".
I'm not arguing this anymore, it's pointless
but your last argument hit me. If abortion was made illegal and I got pregnant and carrying that baby was going to kill me - then someone would have the power to choose whether I live or die - the people who chose to make abortion illegal.

And before anyone argues that abortion would be allowed in those cases, who would get to decide? The courts? By the time the case went through the sluggish system, it could be too late.

This debate has no winner, everyone has their own views. However, from a legal standpoint it either has to be legal or illegal. A pregnant woman is not given the luxury of time for the court to decide whether it is okay in her particular case to be allowed to have an abortion.

God bless.
There was no one cogent thought in that post. Not one. sm
blah blah blah HATE BUSH blah blah blah BURN IN HELL blah blah blah WARMONGER BUSH blah blah blah BUSH IS HITLER blah blah blah... That's all you ever say. You don't talk about Able Danger.  You don't talk about Islamic threat.  You don't talk about ANYTHING that is worthwhile.  You just spew hatred.  Reality Check was right.  There is no use in anyone coming here who does not hate Bush.  And I don't.  I don't support him 100%.  The fact is, a lot of conservatives have reservations about things like illegal immigrantion and the like.  But I never spoke of any sitting President the way you do.  And I certainly had an opportunity. I guess that's what separates us.  Hatred and lack of hatred.  In that case, I am glad to be in the latter group.  Have a nice hate-filled day. 
What's with the name-calling? I thought her post was quite sm
nice and you have to say "chicken little", all snotty. Uncalled for.
Just when I thought you couldn't post anything worse sm
you come up with another even worse screed.  It's bottomless.  They have ugly ugly children, she's a Stepford wife, and he is worse than satan.  And the terrorists are just really nice guys who need a hug, right?  Unbelieveable!
OMG, I hope my post didn't look like I thought Obama did it
I know he didn't. He's a very decent person and respectful and when something is wrong he'll say so (and will have words with his people if they cross the line). I wasn't sure who did it. The news said they were going to tell us who is responsible but they never did (go figure). I just think its a horrible thing to happen to anyone and DH and I were talking tonight about when did all the nasty things like this start happening. I'm sure 100 or so years ago it wasn't bad like this. I just think it's a horrible world when someone is running for an office and people think its okay to do this. How low will they go?
No, your post didn't make it sound like you thought
he was responsible, I'm only imaging how it is going to somehow get back on him. It is a terrible thing to happen to anybody. Some people just need to step back and get a life. :)
gee, I thought conservatives were supposed to post on their own board.....proves all you want sm

to do is fight with someone.  What possible reason could you have for being over here?  Obviously you are not creating dialogue or trading ideas....the only reason is to start something and then here come the insults.  Guidelines posted when they started these boards were to post on your own board. 


I do notice that conservatives post more on that board, but instead of discussing opinions and ideas and their reasons for them, all they do is bash the left. 


 


 


Washington Post: Commission admits they thought they were being deceived.sm

After C Span aired the 911 Scholars Symposium in LA for 3 days, the questions and information has started to flow.  Looks like some are starting to do some CYA.  There are articles in the NYT, Vanity Fair, and even the Washington Post.  For a change, they are not calling skeptics names.  It is only a baby step, but this has made my day. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new


Do I need some kind of motive to post what I thought was a good read..and your point is..
xx
Thought this was good so I thought I'd share

Down the drain?  Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'


By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger


If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.


“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”


“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”


Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?



He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?


Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:


GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.


But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.


OBAMA: Right.


GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.


OBAMA: Right.


GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.


So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?


OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.


Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”


That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.


But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.


Haha! I thought I was the only one who thought he looked

I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking.  If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.

I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well.  I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards. 
the original settlers

She said, and I quote "the original settlers"


Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
The only mandated CS in his original
platform (Blueprint for Change) was for the Opportunity Tax Credit for college students to receive the $4000 college tuition assistance. It states he has a goal for middle school and high school students to do 50 hours, but it never says it is required. (I printed this out during the primary, so it may be out of date.)
FYI, it's not a forgery. It's the original one
on file at the courthouse. I WELCOME a Supreme Court decision so this nonsense will end, although I'm sure then the tin-foil-hatters will swear the current republican-biased Supreme Court was in on the scam too... LOL.
And yet another one makes the Original

For the original package...(sm)
but unsure if it will help as it stands.  The popularity of the against vote for the bill has been fascilitated by some keen advertising on the pub side.  I'm hoping Obama will call the pubs out on tonight's address and point out exactly what it is that pubs want in the bill (more tax breaks for the wealthy that we can't afford), and in particular, which pubs want it.  If he does that keep your eye on the polls.  People will be outraged.
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
original message regarded

the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media.  Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive?  you can't have it both ways.