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

And if you read the previous decision on this

Posted By: sm on 2008-11-26
In Reply to: The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm - oldtimer

the judge raled on and on for pages about Berg and frivolous law suits.


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

If you had read my previous posts
you would know I have a problem with Wright.  The others are just propaganda and I don't pay much attention to propaganda. 
And if you read the previous messages
Nice try!
you must be referring to the previous admin. - GW didn't like to read much......
he did miss that memo about an impending attack on our country using our own private airlines..........Boy wonder? Must be referring to his super hero underwear.
Your previous posts
Arent you the one who posted you were in the military and when asked about it, the truth came out that family members had been in the military, not you?  So, are you spinning the untruths again?  Or are you someone else using the same initials?
It was probably the previous owner.
Geez.
not previous poster but
I actually know several people of mixed race (black/white), who are openly racist against whites.  Not saying that Obama is or isn't, but it can happen.
Previous post
The democrats voted over 90% with their own party just as McCain did with his (Bush). Go to factcheck.org.

Imbicilic? That's juvenile. Just because you don't agree and are a hot-headed Obama follower doesn't mean you have the right to call my posts imbicilic. I have never once degraded my own character by calling an Obama supporter an imbicile. Grow up.
I'm not the previous poster but....(sm)
I personally know about a dozen people, friends and relatives, who fit her post.

I know more about Obama than any of them, but they don't give a darn who the real man is behind the facade that he chooses to show the world.



Not to mention the documentary made during the election made that shows Obama voters, who knew/know next to nothing about the man they had just voted for...and didn't care, even when things were pointed out to them.


Some people are so uninformed who voted for Obama. My mother, my sister-in-law included, just to name a few. They only voted the democrat party like they always did...could care less who the real Obama is.....
Have they done that with previous pres?
If they have done this with previous presidents, I really couldn't care less.  Anyone know the answer to this?
Lilly, check this out per previous
Freedom of the press?


Scott McClellan Says Helen Thomas Opposes 'War on Terrorism'

By E&P Staff

Published: October 13, 2005 3:50 PM ET

NEW YORKQuestions today from longtime White House reporter Helen Thomas caused White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to declare that she opposes the war on terrorism. His response caused one of Thomas's colleagues, Terry Moran, to leap to her defense.

Here is the exchange from the official transcript:

THOMAS What does the President mean by total victory -- that we will never leave Iraq until we have total victory? What does that mean?

McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions --

THOMAS If they ask us to leave, then we'll leave?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East -- we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community.

THOMAS They also know we invaded Iraq.

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you're engaged in a war, it's not always pleasant, and it's certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. September 11th taught us --

THOMAS It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter.

Terry.

TERRY MORAN On what basis do you say Helen is opposed to the broader war on terrorism?

McCLELLAN: Well, she certainly expressed her concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq and going into those two countries. I think I can go back and pull up her comments over the course of the past couple of years.

MORAN And speak for her, which is odd.

McCLELLAN: No, I said she may be, because certainly if you look at her comments over the course of the past couple of years, she's expressed her concerns --

THOMAS I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- she's expressed her concerns.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)


Links referenced within this article

letters@editorandpublisher.com
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:letters@editorandpublisher.com


Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305789
Maybe no one answered the two previous posts...sm
becuase they're tired of getting jumped on by your side, you know, the anti-fanatic fanatics...lol....but true.

I've refrained from commenting on this issue, even though I feel as if Obama is hiding something. Wonder what it could be?






click on the link previous post

It's alive, it's alive..Why, Dr. Frankenstein, it's alive!


Head of FEMA fired from previous job
Take a look at THIS info:
(source http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/2/34622/68348)

Yes, that's right... the man responsible for directing federal relief operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sharpened his emergency management skills as the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horses Association... a position from which he was forced to resign in the face of mounting litigation and financial disarray.

And what of that misleading White House press release?

'From 1991 to 2001, Brown was the Commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, an international subsidiary of the national governing organization of the U.S. Olympic Committee.'

I can't even begin to fact check the dates or IAHA's alleged relationship to the US Olympic Committee, because of course, the IAHA doesn't exist anymore, so there's nothing to Google. But it begs the question... how the hell did his prior job experience prepare Brown to head FEMA?

Well, judging by his agency's performance over the past few days... it didn't.

[Cross-posted at HorsesAss.org]

_______________

Apparently, experience had nothing to do with Bush's bid for the presidency, and so he hands out agency posts like lollipops to his friends regardless of their competence or experience also.
The result is that thousands die unnecessarily on many continents. No one ever gets punished for this. Instead they get the Medal of Honor or civilian equivalent. They get promoted.
If I understant your previous writing correctly,
apparently you have been missing in action over the last 8 years.  There have been absolutely NO checks or balances, so how would that be any different than what we already have.  Obama ushering in a New World Order?  You have completely misunderstood this whole conversation.  These things have started almost 20 years ago.  It is not NEW, it is now being expounded upon, but NOT NEW!!  Bush played into this all of his 8 years in office...maybe you should look again and read some more.  I am just the messenger.
previous speech talks how he will check "
nm
Witch hunt on previous administration?
Ah, for the waterboarding? I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the fact that America put Japanese war prisoners to death, yes executed them, for the same thing as your previous administration now stands accused of, torture. Strange how it was horrible when it was done to Americans but now it is ok? You, dearie, need to be off the panic button. This is like mass hysteria with people running scared, of what? Oh, I saw yesterday where Obama has now been called the superpresident, nice sound, huh?
A previous poster asked who PNAC was. I answered. sm
They influence US and world policy, so believe they are definitely a threat. I first heard about the Illuminati in a Bible study class. Thought everyone knew about them. You all must think everything said is a conspiracy theory. No, Bush isn't one, but I am sure he takes orders from them, and so does other world leaders. In the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, the creature is a monster known as The Federal Reserve System conjured up at a secret meeting by a group of Illuminati snakes on a remote island off the east coast of America in 1913.

I do believe Islam is a threat, but I also think they are being provoked and persecuted. If you do not know history on the above, then you wouldn't understand why I think this.


please note...the title line of the previous post were....
sim's words, not mine. Refer to her/his post.
So what, you're 80, 90 years old and know this? Previous poster talking about...sm
Joseph Kennedy back in the 1940s and 1950s, some 60-70 years ago, and what he did and didn't do? It's all in the history books.

Maybe Teddy is like that today and pays for nothing (doubt that, but hey, you say live there, whatever), really don't care for him much at all, what with Chappaquiddick (sp?) and all, and how daddy Kennedy got young Teddy off on murder charges on that poor girl, Mary Jane Kopechne. Daddy Kennedy called in favors for that one, too, doncha know.

It's well known how much daddy Kennedy did for JFK way back then, to get him elected. It's called history.




my 401K from a previous employer hasn't lost much
but it's in low risk investments, a lot of bonds, and so when things get better, it probably won't rise as quickly as other 401k's. I'm a chicken.
No, you have paid no attention to the previous posters, maxie...sm
If Obama ushers it in, he will be to blame. Period.

And not it looks like no one in Congress in the minority (i.e., republicans) will be able to present any sort of check and balance to anything that goes on in the next four years.


God help us all.
what decision?? nm
nm
Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm)
x
Not O's decision...(sm)
the supreme court's decision.
Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still
Here, the cruel choice would have been to let this poor infant go to term.

Let not your heart be troubled; this child is with God and has been made whole. You'll be reunited one day, I'm sure.
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?

This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
Seems like a logical decision

to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost.  There is a lot at stake here.  I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.


making right decision

This is my first post on the Politics board.  I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R. 


I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org. 


First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home.    I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about... 


I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is.  I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions.  A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman.  On and on and on. 


I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel. 


I'm happy for you and that your decision
Had your family or the father tried to force you to abort, you would have acted accordingly and not listened to them, rather to your inner voice. There is no one-decision-fits-all when answering this question. For that reason, it is only fair that each woman is given the same consideration, to listen to their own gut and act in accordance to what it is telling her. She too will face the outcome, regardless of what the resolution will be and that is as it should be. If you are "tired" of hearing "my body, my right," don't listen. You made your choice. Let others have the same.
I have made my decision -

I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working.  They just do not want to believe.  And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking!  It is ridiculous.


I will no longer try to help people see the truth.  If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway.  I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...


I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!!  The America that other countries envy and want to be!


 


But it isn't your decision to make, is it?
Trot yourself down to DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision...
in not releasing the alleged abuse photos yesterday.

Other than that, I've not been his biggest fan and have to agree with A. Nonymous as to where he's taking this country.
To a great extent, it is Frank's fault, previous poster correct.
Barney Frank and the rest of the democrats in charge of Congress now, will be laughing at you, too....at all of us.
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to
.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?

The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a
human life and no way would I ever have killed that baby.  We will never agree, so we should probably just agree to disagree on this one.  Have a blessed day!  
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision.  I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point.  Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it.  That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it.  We did it on a small scale after 9/11.   I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual.  If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change.  However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years.  AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done  Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix.  Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt
x
I agree with O's decision. Showing this
awful tortures, yes, they were very awful, might endanger the American soldiers, especially if they get caught and might be exposed to the 'same' tortures.
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
sorry, Obama did not make this decision -
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html

It was decided in 1916!
War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists)

Now here's an honest Republican.  Very refreshing!






URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html
Duncan: War is a partisan decision


Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats




WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.


Have you been watching the convention and does this help you in your voting decision

Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far?  I watched it last night.  Lots of commentaries that were a little boring.  I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else.  Loved the tribute to Kennedy.  His health condition is tragic.  He's done so much good while in the senate.  Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person.  She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised.  She knows the struggles we Americans face every day.  I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.


On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention.  I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is.  I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.


Does the convention help you in your choice of who you will vote for.


It is a fair question. The decision will have to be made during the next...
President's administration. All I asked is, would you support him? Why are you afraid to answer?
I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one...
As far as the fairness of evaluating a nominee who is a lawyer based on the argument that they advocated for a client or who they represented and the standard it sets for future nominees, I’m a big believer in reciprocity. If Obama ever opposed or criticized any of then President Bush’s nominees or any other President’s nominees because of who they represented or the arguments they made on their client’s behalf, then what’s good for the goose. . .
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?

JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm)

It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists.  I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision.  If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.


I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos.  Last I heard, the complete opposite was true.  Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?


Typical, let someone make a decision in a free country..
to support the person he believes is best and his party turns on him like he is a traitor. How can you call yourself Democrats with a straight face?

I am raising my hand...I certainly give a flying frito if someone wants to send this country down the road to a Marxist government. How is that working for Cuba? For Venezuela?