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

Anyone else catch the first dance?

Posted By: penny on 2009-01-20
In Reply to:

Have you ever seen so much love between 2 people? 


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

Dance off...

YouTube - Unbelievable McCain Vs. Obama Dance-Off


 


                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlAKnSCRWQM


Oh please. That's a Republican dance!
We're gonna kick their sorry a$$es out of office in Nov.
Only if you are dry humping on the dance floor.

I was raised in the church but I think some religious fanatics get carried away with their rules.  Just another way to try and control people. 


Yipee! la la la! Doing a HAPPY DANCE!!!
xx
I thought it was a joke. They can't dance and that
show for the second ball at first? Probably trying to hem that dress. Later the O announces his wife and guess what? She did not show. Then he states "I think I may have been stood up." Then a few seconds later, she shows up.

At least the second dance was a little bit better and that dress was not getting in the way as much as the the first dance. By the way, that dress does not look good on her and kept getting in her way.

All that love they showed? Seemed like she was talking about that darn dress getting in the way.
I thought it was a joke. They can't dance and that
show for the second ball at first? Probably trying to hem that dress. Later the O announces his wife and guess what? She did not show. Then he states "I think I may have been stood up." Then a few seconds later, she shows up.

At least the second dance was a little bit better and that dress was not getting in the way as much as the the first dance. By the way, that dress does not look good on her and kept getting in her way.

Oh I forgot, let's blame it on Bush. Oh, Bush is not around to get blamed. ha ha

All that love they showed? Seemed like she was talking about that darn dress getting in the way.
It's a dance-off, and meant to be just silly.... cute! nm
x
catch - you know what I mean -

Iraq's Catch 22

Came across this earlier ~ My sentiments from another's pen.  Found on the Independent's web site.


Catch 22 in Iraq
Why American Troops Can’t Go Home


by Michael Schwartz


Every week or so, the Department of Defense conducts a video-conference press briefing for reporters in Washington, featuring an on-the-ground officer in Iraq. On November 15th, that briefing was with Col. Jeffrey Bannister, commander of the Second Brigade of the Second Infantry Division. He was chosen because of his unit’s successful application of surge tactics in three mainly Shia districts in eastern Baghdad. He had, among other things, set up several outposts in these districts offering a 24-hour American military presence; he had also made generous use of transportable concrete walls meant to separate and partition neighborhoods, and had established numerous checkpoints to prevent unauthorized entry or exit from these communities.


As Col. Bannister summed up the situation:



“We have been effective, and we’ve seen violence significantly reduced as our Iraqi security forces have taken a larger role in all aspects of operations, and we are starting to see harmony between Sunni and Shi’a alike.”


The briefing seemed uneventful — very much a reflection of the ongoing mood of the moment among American commanders in Iraq — and received no significant media coverage. However, there was news lurking in an answer Col. Bannister gave to a question from AP reporter Pauline Jelinek (about arming volunteer local citizens to patrol their neighborhoods), even if it passed unnoticed. The colonel made a remarkable reference to an unexplained “five-year plan” that, he indicated, was guiding his actions. Here was his answer in full:



“I mean, right now we’re focused just on security augmentation [by the volunteers] and growing them to be Iraqi police because that is where the gap is that we’re trying to help fill capacity for in the Iraqi security forces. The army and the national police, I mean, they’re fine. The Iraqi police is — you know, the five-year plan has — you know, it’s doubling in size. … [We expect to have] 4,000 Iraqi police on our side over the five-year plan.


“So that’s kind of what we’re doing. We’re helping on security now, growing them into IP [Iraqi police]…. They’ll have 650 slots that I fill in March, and over the five-year period we’ll grow up to another 2,500 or 3,500.


Most astonishing in his comments is the least astonishing word in our language: “the.” Colonel Bannister refers repeatedly to “the five-year plan,” assuming his audience understands that there is indeed a master plan for his unit — and for the American occupation — mandating a slow, many-year buildup of neighborhood-protection forces into full fledged police units. This, in turn, is all part of an even larger plan for the conduct of the occupation.


Included in this implicit understanding is the further assumption that Col. Bannister’s unit, or some future replacement unit, will be occupying these areas of eastern Baghdad for that five-year period until that 4,000 man police force is finally fully developed.


Staying the Course, Any Course


A recent Washington Post political cartoon by Tom Toles captured the irony and tragedy of this “five-year plan.” A big sign on the White House lawn has the message “We can’t leave Iraq because it’s going…” and a workman is adjusting a dial from “Badly” to “Well.”


This cartoon raises the relevant question: If things are “going well” in Iraq, then why aren’t American troops being withdrawn? This is a point raised persuasively by Robert Dreyfuss in a recent Tomdispatch post in which he argues that the decline in three major forms of violence (car bombs, death-squad executions, and roadside IEDs) should be the occasion for a reduction, and then withdrawal, of the American military presence. But, as Dreyfuss notes, the Bush administration has no intention of organizing such a withdrawal; nor, it seems, does the Democratic Party leadership — as indicated by their refusal to withhold funding for the war, and by the promises of the leading presidential candidates to maintain significant levels of American troops in Iraq, at least through any first term in office.


The question that emerges is why stay this course? If violence has been reduced by more than 50%, why not begin to withdraw significant numbers of troops in preparation for a complete withdrawal? The answer can be stated simply: A reduction in the violence does not mean that things are “going well,” only that they are going “less badly.”


You can tell things can’t be going well if your best-case plan is for an armed occupation force to remain in a major Baghdad community for the next five years. It means that the underlying causes of disorder are not being addressed. You can tell things are not going well if five more years are needed to train and activate a local police force, when police training takes about six months. (Consider this an indication that the recruits exhibit loyalties and goals that run contrary to those of the American military.) You can tell things are not going well when communities have to be surrounded by cement walls and checkpoints that naturally disrupt normal life, including work, school, and daily shopping. These are all signs that escalating discontent and protest may require new suppressive actions in the not-so-distant future.


The American military is well aware of this. They keep reminding us that the present decline in violence may be temporary, nothing more than a brief window of opportunity that could be used to resolve some of the “political problems” facing Iraq before the violence can be reinvigorated. The current surge — even “the five year plan” — is not designed to solve Iraq’s problems, just to hold down the violence while others, in theory, act.


What Does the Bush Administration Want in Iraq?


What are the political problems that require resolution? The typical mainstream media version of these problems makes them out to be uniquely Iraqi in nature. They stem — so the story goes — from deeply engrained friction among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, frustrating all efforts to resolve matters like the distribution of political power and oil revenues. In this version, the Americans are (usually inept) mediators in Iraqi disputes and are fated to remain in Iraq only because the Bush administration has little choice but to establish relatively peaceful and equitable solutions to these disputes before seriously considering leaving.


By now, however, most of us realize that there is much more to the American purpose in Iraq than a commitment to an elected government in Baghdad that could peacefully resolve sectarian tensions. The rhetoric of the Bush administration and its chief democratic opponents (most notably Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) is increasingly laced with references — to quote Clinton — to “vital national security interests” in the Middle East that will require a continuing “military as well as political mission.” In Iraq, leading Washington politicians of both parties agree on the necessity of establishing a friendly government that will welcome the presence of a “residual” American military force, oppose Iran’s regional aspirations, and prevent the country from becoming “a petri dish for insurgents.”


Let’s be clear about those “vital national security interests.” America’s vital interests in the Middle East derive from the region’s status as the world’s principle source of oil. President Jimmy Carter enunciated exactly this principle back in 1980 when he promulgated the Carter Doctrine, stating that the U.S. was willing to use “any means necessary, including military force,” to maintain access to supplies of Middle Eastern oil sufficient to keep the global economy running smoothly. All subsequent presidents have reiterated, amplified, and acted on this principle.


The Bush administration, in applying the Carter Doctrine, was faced with the need to access increasing amounts of Middle Eastern oil in light of constantly escalating world energy consumption. In 2001, Vice-President Cheney’s Energy Task Force responded to this challenge by designating Iraq as the linchpin in a general plan to double Middle Eastern oil production in the following years. It was reasonable, task force members decided, to hope for a genuine spurt in production in Iraq, whose oil industry had remained essentially stagnant (or worse) from 1980 to that moment. By ousting the backward-looking regime of Saddam Hussein and transferring the further development, production, and distribution of Iraq’s bounteous oil reserves to multinational oil companies, they would assure the introduction of modern methods of production, ample investment capital, and an aggressive urge to increase output. Indeed, after removing Saddam via invasion in 2003, the Bush administration has made repeated (if so far unsuccessful) efforts to implement this plan.


The desire for such an endpoint has hardly disappeared. It became increasingly clear, however, that successful implementation of such plans would, at best, take many years, and that the maintenance of a powerful American political and military presence within Iraq was a necessary prerequisite to everything else. Since sustaining such a presence was itself a major problem, however, it also became clear that America’s plans depended on dislodging powerful forces entrenched in all levels of Iraqi society — from public opinion to elected leaders to the insurgency itself.


American ambitions — far more than sectarian tensions — constitute the irresolvable core of Iraq’s political problems. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation. They wish the Americans gone and a regime in place in Baghdad that is not an American ally. (This is true whether you are considering the Shiite majority or the Sunni minority.) As for a “residual” American military presence, the Iraqi Parliament recently passed a resolution demanding that the UN mandate for a U.S. occupation be rescinded.


Even the issue of terrorism is controversial. The American propensity to label as “terrorist” all violent opposition to the occupation means that most Iraqis (57% in August 2007), when asked, support terrorism as defined by the occupiers, since majorities in both the Sunni and Shia communities endorse using violent means to expel the Americans. Hillary Clinton’s ambition that the U.S. must prevent Iraq from becoming a “petri dish for insurgency” (like the President’s stated fear that the country could become the center of an al-Qaedan “caliphate”) will require the forcible suppression of most resistance to the American presence.


As for opposition to Iran, 60% of Iraqi citizens are Shiites, who have strong historic, religious, and economic ties to Iran, and who favor friendly relations with their neighbor. Even Prime Minister Maliki — the Bush administration’s staunchest ally — has repeatedly strengthened political, economic, and even military ties with Iran, causing numerous confrontations with American diplomats and military officials. As long as the Shia dominate national politics, they will oppose the American demand that Iraq support the United States campaign to isolate and control Iran. If the U.S. insists on an ally in its anti-Iran campaign, it must find a way in the next few years to alter these loyalties, as well as Sunni loyalties to the insurgency.


Finally there is that unresolved question of developing Iraqi oil reserves. For four years, Iraqis of all sectarian and political persuasions have (successfully) resisted American attempts to activate the plan first developed by Cheney’s Energy Task Force. They have wielded sabotage of pipelines, strikes by oil workers, and parliamentary maneuvering, among other acts. The vast majority of the population — including a large minority of Kurds and both the Sunni and Shia insurgencies — believes that Iraqi oil should be tightly controlled by the government and therefore support every effort — including in many cases violent resistance — to prevent the activation of any American plan to transfer control of significant aspects of the Iraqi energy industry to foreign companies. Implementation of the U.S. oil proposal therefore will require the long-term suppression of violent and non-violent local resistance, as well as strenuous maneuvering at all levels of government.


Foreigners (Americans Excepted) Not Welcome


This multidimensional opposition to American goals cannot be defeated simply by diplomatic maneuvering or negotiations between Washington and the still largely powerless government inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. The Bush administration has repeatedly gained the support of Prime Minister Maliki and his cabinet for one or another of its crucial goals — most recently for the public announcement that the two governments had agreed that the U.S. would maintain a “long-term troop presence” inside Iraq. Such an embrace is never enough, since the opposition operates at so many levels, and ultimately reaches deep into local communities, where violent and nonviolent resistance results in the sabotage of oil production, attacks on the government for its support of the U.S. presence, and direct attacks on American troops.


Nor can the pursuit of these goals be transferred — any time soon — to an American-trained Iraqi army and police force. All previous attempts at such a transfer have yielded Iraqi units that were reluctant to fight for U.S. goals and could not be trusted unsupervised in the field. The “five year plan” Colonel Bannister mentioned is an acknowledgement that training an Iraqi force that truly supports an American presence and would actively enforce American inspired policies is a distant hope. It would depend on the transformation of Iraqi political attitudes as well as of civic and government institutions that currently resist U.S. demands. It would involve a genuine, successful pacification of the country. In this context, a decline in the fighting and violence in Iraq, both against the Americans and between embittered Iraqi communities, is indeed only a first step.


So surge “success” doesn’t mean withdrawal — yes, some troops will come home slowly — but the rest will have to embed themselves in Iraqi communities for the long haul. This situation was summarized well by Captain Jon Brooks, the commander of Joint Security Station Thrasher in Western Baghdad, one of the small outposts that represent the front lines of the surge strategy. When asked by New Yorker reporter Jon Lee Anderson how long he thought the U.S. would remain in Iraq, he replied, “I’m not just blowing smoke up your ass, but it really depends on what the U.S. civilian-controlled government decides its goals are and what it tells the military to do.”


As long as that government is determined to install a friendly, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, one that is hostile to “foreigners,” including all jihadists, but welcomes an ongoing American military presence as well as multinational development of Iraqi oil, the American armed forces aren’t going anywhere, not for a long, long time; and no relative lull in the fighting — temporary or not — will change that reality. This is the Catch-22 of Bush administration policy in Iraq. The worse things go, the more our military is needed; the better they go, the more our military is needed.


Yes, but missed it. Will try to catch it during
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
did anyone catch how she said "nucular" ? --- OMG
Just gave me that warm McBush feeling all over...
catch ya later, babe.
nm
He's not "my boy". I only catch him

a couple times a week early in the morning if I can't sleep.


I don't have stocks or bonds, so it's really a moot point. I just need some laughs once in a while over how upset he gets over some things.


Not sure his karma will catch up with him any time soon....
Remember he's got the power that he created backing him.  And yes, I did read that what he did, if he did it as claimed, could be punishable in the extreme.  But of course I think nothing will happen.  I am following this with great interest.  Here's from the AP:

WASHINGTON - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.




But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.


McClellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: "I've really said all I'm going to say on it."


_____________


Could it be that the White House has told a LIE????  How many is that now?


So anyway, if you hear any more interesting news on this please share.


 


If anyone can catch Hardball tonight

on MSNBC, there's a wonderful interview with parents of one of the Marines who was killed in the last couple days in Iraq.


These people gave the ultimate sacrifice, and IMHO their voices are very important.


Already been discussed on both boards. Catch up. nm
x
wow did anybody catch the daily show

depended on it.


 


Deliverance, anyone?


Evidently, she did't quite catch your drift.
nm
Hazel is that catch-all eye color,
not brown, not green, not gray, sort of indeterminate (too long a word to put on the driver's license, so they invented hazel.)
Well, at least you have a new catch phrase. Don't wear it out now, ya hear? nm

By any chance, you catch Larry King?
To begin with, I was a pregnant teen and most definitively will be voting for Obama. The other unwed mother poster is voting for Obama too in case you hadn't noticed. Bully, fear and threat tactics are not effective.

His candidacy is alive and well and has nothing to do with this issue and how it is going to play out. Tonight, Larry King's panel were talking this subject up one side and down the other. Every single issue that was raised today in these posts on this board were touched upon....every single one. SP is in the political arena now. Unfortunately, she has put her daughter there too. The issues surrounding this will be politicized. You can't stop this train.
Didn't quite catch the drift of this post.
su
excuse my typos today...I catch them after I post... :) nm

Anyone catch John Kerry's speech last night?

Scathing against McCain.  Fabulous speech.  He echoed some of my thoughts on McCain, about how much he has changed to pander to the base and get the nomination.  Here is a snippet:


 


Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it.


 


I'm a left-leaning independent who thought I may vote Republican this time around if McCain ran.  Well, he did, and as time went on I could see how much he has changed his positions to pander to the far right and I have lost most of my respect for him.  I'll give him credit for being a veteran and a POW (a point that while it was once a powerful emotional point for him is now abused by him as an excuse for just about everything is sadly becoming a joke of his own making), but candidate McCain is NOT the same as Senator John McCain.  Anyway, great speech by Sen. Kerry.


I especially enjoyed the real refreshing lie I caught him in the other day...did you catch it?
...no, guess not...no one in the media called him on it either.


Here, let me give you a hint. Obama said that all of the conservative and liberal economists agreed that his economy recovery plan was good (or would work, or something like that).


The lie being that "all the conservative economists" part.

That was one, big, fat, honking lie.....no one even blinked and took his word for it.


My DH says there's at least a half dozen conservative economists out there that don't agree with Obama...and yet....if Obama says they do....everyone believes him.


He lies and you don't even know it, he's so smooth about it.....



But some of us know he does...lie that is......he's getting real good at talking both sides of the issues, so that if something does or doesn't come to pass, he can say I told you so....or whatever needs to be said to save his you know whatsis.

I think he's learned a lot from the Clintons lately, don't you?
dont worry, you wont catch on fire when you read them!
i have to go know and pick up my daughter.  I might do some bible thumping on the way to the school, who knows.
We're just trying to catch our breath after laughing over some of the blind right posts (and W. i
nm
Hey, JTBB, did you happen to catch Janene Garofolo last night on Olbermann? sm
Her psychological analysis of Lamebaugh and the type of people who ""follow""him was right on the money!!  I guess there is whole lot of self-loathing going around on this board!!  LOL