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

Broken Record...skip, skip, skip, skip.

Posted By: Rama Lama Ding Dong on 2008-09-23
In Reply to: Yep....when they can't refute, they... - sam

I guess that is what you do when you run out of anything important to say!


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

Broken record, skip, skip, skip
You just keep repeating the same things over and over and over again. Please, find something new to say!
skip them
Anger?  Nah, but I do wonder as over and over and over and over you post posts stating I have anger and hate and whatever which I wonder could they possibly be your problems as Im just trying to post my democratic beliefs and if you dont agree, dont read my posts. period..skip over them and post you republican spew..
I would rather skip the

hope for divine intervention and ask the government that collects our tax dollars to help our fellow citizens.  There must be some spare change from all the money spent on war they can direct to citizens in need.


 


They sure did. I think they are going to skip the NAU. sm
They are asking us to join the EU. All the power elites (bankers) are meeting November 15th - one world currency? They are not being secretive about it anymore and I think they will usher it in pretty quickly or we will get another false flag to terrorize us into accepting it.
skip my posts

This is the liberal board, you dont like my opinions, dont read them, its as easy as that.  Free country, freedom of speech..


skip the bashing for a second, sim
nm
Actually, I do skip over a lot of your posts
my point is that here you are telling us we should all stop and be respectful and not post about O until he's had a chance to grieve, and yet, up to this point, you have been posting.  So now, we should all stop and listen to the "messiah" and not post?  Give me a break!
So skip my posts, not hard to do.
And...the attacks start..cant get through a day without them, hun?  I think it means a lot to me that Bush's grandfather helped finance Hitler's war machine..and this is where Bush's family got his money.  It means major things to me.  As far as Kennedy, that is not who is our president, Bush is.  Means a lot to me..do I care if you think so or not, nope..so just move on to another post and delete this one from your brain..If anyone is going off the *deep end*, it is you for getting your panties all wadded up on this post..How's your BP?  Did I get it steaming yet?
Just in case you skip the message,
see post directly above
Again. Not about the skirt. Did you skip the part
There are 2 things sucking hot air this morning. One is Ike and the other one is that space between your 2 ears. When facing the aspect of loss of lives or those of our family members, a little indignation is in order. I am a female. "Lipstick" and "skirt" are things I wear and are associated with a female. I am not sexist against my own gender. HELLO. Ike is the scary one. SP, a pipsqueak. Go erect an alter in your living room, light some incense and candles and throw up her picture and worship to your heart's content, but give the rest of us a break from this for a day or two. Truly amazing that you cannot see the world that lays beyond this flash in the pan.
Most of us grownups would prefer to skip the HM
get down to business.
Did Obama skip Bush's speech? sm
Looks like he did.



Did Obama Skip Bush's Speech?
Posted by Michelle Levi| Comments10


As his predecessor, President Bush, said his final goodbyes to America on national television, President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle dined at the DC restaurant, Equinox Thursday night.

CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic, who waited outside the restaurant, reports that there is no indication whether or not Mr. Obama was watching President Bush's farewell remarks.

The President-elect departed the Blair house, located right across the street from the White House podium from which the president spoke, minutes before President Bush commenced.

A host at the restaurant tells CBS News' that the President-elect stopped by the only television in the high end establishment, a small screen at the bar, and watched for "a minute or two." The source said he did not notice what Mr. Obama was watching but that "no" it was not for an extended period of time.

No one from Obama's transition team has responded to CBS News' inquiries as to whether he was watching the address.








http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4726147.shtml
Did Obama skip Bush's speech? sm
Looks like he did. Very unbecoming, disrepectful side of Pres-elect Obama we're seeing.



Did Obama Skip Bush's Speech?
Posted by Michelle Levi| Comments10


As his predecessor, President Bush, said his final goodbyes to America on national television, President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle dined at the DC restaurant, Equinox Thursday night.

CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic, who waited outside the restaurant, reports that there is no indication whether or not Mr. Obama was watching President Bush's farewell remarks.

The President-elect departed the Blair house, located right across the street from the White House podium from which the president spoke, minutes before President Bush commenced.

A host at the restaurant tells CBS News' that the President-elect stopped by the only television in the high end establishment, a small screen at the bar, and watched for "a minute or two." The source said he did not notice what Mr. Obama was watching but that "no" it was not for an extended period of time.

No one from Obama's transition team has responded to CBS News' inquiries as to whether he was watching the address.








http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4726147.shtml
Great solution. Skip healthcare for the parents.
Because it is great for kids to be motherless and fatherless?  Right.  I actually do not have any health insurance, and since I put my kids first (who are covered btw), that is okay for now, but should I really have to do without?  I agree tax refunds would be good for people who pay health insurance, but I think a better solution would be for government to force the health insurance companies to offer more affordable, straight-forward plans.  WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO AGAINST FREE OR AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE FOR KIDS WHO DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE WHAT INCOME LEVEL/INTELLIGENCE LEVEL THEIR PARENTS ARE.  I am a broken record here.  I don't care what argument you give me, I will still believe that government should cover all kids, just like it already covers all poor people.  Does a poor adult deserve better healthcare than a middle-income child?  No, of course not, but God forbid someone raise your taxes (even though they will continue to rise regardless) to fund health care for kids.
You must skip all the "rabid" democrat discussion, and obviously don't count...sm
However, rather unfair to use the term "rabid" for any of us, don't you think?



I'd love to hear from the gal that was keeping score yesterday, to see who really rants and rails the most.

Seems to me the dems on this board far out rant the reps, and yet I don't see you calling the dems rabid.



rabid
One entry found.


Main Entry:
ra·bid Listen to the pronunciation of rabid
Pronunciation:
ˈra-bəd also ˈrā-
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin rabidus mad, from rabere
Date:
1594

1 a: extremely violent : furious b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion

2: affected with rabies
Did you skip the part about hate speech and assassignations?
nm
Did you skip the part about the palpable surge of activity
Here's a news flash for you. They were exaggerating, distorting and, on a few occasions, LYING about Obama. That's beside the point. It was irresponsible and dangerous for a campaign or candidates to continue along a course of rhetoric that incites racism, bigotry, division, hatred and fear when it is patently evident in the blogosphere what the effect was....no help in their poll numbers (in fact, numbers going south) but HUGE spike in the "activity" in question. McCain and Palin were vetting their leadership capacity in the election. This is not leadership in any shapre, form or fashion. It is what it is...hate speech. THAT'S the bottom line.
Broken record. Broken rec- hic! Broken
And so forth, ad infinitum.
Yup, it's that same old broken record.
X
Yawn same broken record
that keeps sticking on the same note.
They all sound like a broken record.sm
I think they all learned this from Hannity on Fox. They call everyone asking questions conspiratory theorists, or if they cannot shoot the message they focus the blame on Clinton. The one thing they never do is answer THE QUESTIONS. Here is a link to an article on Hannity's histrionics on 911.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/23/hannitys_hackneyed_histrionics_over_911.php

This is like listening to a broken record! (nm)
It just keeps skipping back and repeating the same thing over and over and over. Do have these comments set up in a word Expander to save time and keystrokes?
BC fanatics, the broken record.
x
You're a broken record. How about providing some

Roberts certainly has more credentials and work experience than you do.


Do you just close your eyes and refuse to believe the truth because you **need** the use of Israel in order for all that **Rapture** stuff to come to fruition?


To only call it **propaganda** over and over again just proves you don't know what you're talking about.  If you do, provide proof to the contrary.


Broken Record...just keeps skipping back and repeating!
Can you guys please come up with some new material already. Hearing the same mantra over and over and over again is getting annoying!
I would like to see this broken down....
what was the cause of death, into specifics. Like what was the leading cause of infant death? I doubt that it is due to disparity in access to health care among racial and income groups. What "doctors and analysts?" This is a very broad article and I am thinking the specifics would paint a different picture, which is why they are not included.
Get used to broken promises

And squeezing money out of "the middle class".


Your thinker is broken.
Or at least, badly warped. Have you ever actuallyr read any of Obama's policies or plans, or to you just get your information out of the hate blogs and off of Fox Noise? Obama has an energy plan that addresses, among other things, price of gas (not so much of an issue at the moment). Obama believes that the economy cannot recover without restructuring mortgages to mitigate 1 and every 10 American going into foreclosure (according to the latest stats on that).

If you had been equipped knowledge of any of this, you would have understood what the girl was talking about. Instead, you have just assumed she is looking for an hand-out/freebie. Your thinking is so jumbled, it is difficult to address it. The people who in times of uncertainty cling to their religion and guns, i.e., those things that they are familiar with and hold dear, are rural folks, HARDLY wealthy, by any estimation.

Your thinking is so poisoned with hatred, there really is no point in even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
Your thinker is broken.
Or at least, badly warped. Have you ever actuallyr read any of Obama's policies or plans, or to you just get your information out of the hate blogs and off of Fox Noise? Obama has an energy plan that addresses, among other things, price of gas (not so much of an issue at the moment). Obama believes that the economy cannot recover without restructuring mortgages to mitigate 1 and every 10 American going into foreclosure (according to the latest stats on that).

If you had been equipped knowledge of any of this, you would have understood what the girl was talking about. Instead, you have just assumed she is looking for an hand-out/freebie. Your thinking is so jumbled, it is difficult to address it. The people who in times of uncertainty cling to their religion and guns, i.e., those things that they are familiar with and hold dear, are rural folks, HARDLY wealthy, by any estimation.

Your thinking is so poisoned with hatred, there really is no point in even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
perhaps your thinker is broken
Religion has no geographic or socioeconomic boundaries. People do not "cling to their religion in times of uncertainty." People embrace their religion as a way to live. Gun ownership also crosses geographic and socioeconomic boundaries. Seen an NRA membership list??? You think those are all people who are "hardly wealthy by any estimation." Perhaps you should have equipped yourself with knowledge of this.
Is your remote broken? (sm)
You might want to try just unplugging the TV.  If it sickens you so much, why do you keep watching?
Once again....another broken promise by the big O.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/obama_softens_ban_on_hiring_lobbyists/


 


So much for the change Obama promised to bring.  Sounds to me like it is the same old political bullcrap of the rules not applying to certain people.  Why bother saying stuff when you know you can't or won't do it?


AND BECAUSE OUR MILITARY IS BROKEN.....

The biggest selling product in the US right now is GUNS. So you think the cowards in this country can't protect themselves? Think again. Your family members weren't drafted and because they made that choice doesn't make everyone else cowards. You insult this country with your pious crap.


My house has been broken into, as well...
a far cry from a war on our soil.
Broken promises.
Obama Breaks Pledge to People Making Under $250K



Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) condemns the recent passage of the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night, 33-25, with four Democrats opposing,. ATR is calling on President Obama to keep his pledge.

All of this comes without a peep from President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Even House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says that he has “40-45 votes” to take down the over $600 billion climate tax bill that will cost jobs and increase energy prices.

President Obama said on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeated that pledgeon October 22nd in Richmond, VA:

The concerns are still the same; this bill increases the price of energy and taxes all American families, not just those making over $250,000 as President Obama promised:

-Direct energy costs will go up $1,500 per year for the typical family of four.

-Even with a 26% reduction is use, electric bills will be $754 higher in 2035 than in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.

-Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

-From 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800.

-On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.

-Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, “It would be very helpful if President Obama would keep just one of his campaign promises and oppose this massive tax hike. If not – we have him on record and he is clearly breaking his ‘pledge’.”


If it is broken, why haven't they fixed it?

Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:


If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?




Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors
as high-priority terrorist threats.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?

Strange silence now broken.

First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC?  Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals?  How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy?   


 


Small business.  Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear.  Go here:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business.  Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers.  For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax.  Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation.  Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount.  Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point.  Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim.  I'm not finding that in O's plan.  The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below.    


 


On the plight of the struggling rich.  Define rich, please.  From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right.  From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder).  The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo.    Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden.  An accurate argument would include these facts as well.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth.  In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.  Let's say that one more time.  Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%.  Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax.  Got the picture?


 


There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas.  Greed.  They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing.  Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply.  Greed is not a universal American value.    



There you go again.  Please try to keep this discussion in the context of McCain plans and how they are different than Bush plans.  You are spinning way out in right field without a paddle on that ridiculous statement about keeping people in lower brackets.  What in the world make you think this kind of ignorance is going to help JM/SP win the election. 


Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week.  I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history.  Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing."  Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors.  Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea.  http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503.  You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal.  My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party? 


Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with.  So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one.   Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course.  JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly.  I see O has one. 


 


JM hate war?  LMAO.  So what was all that military service orgie this week all about?   The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war.  Where is his war prevention strategy?  Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance?  Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates?  Am laughing too hard to comment further on this. 


 


Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy.  Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation.  I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism?  The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday.  Far mongering does not a justification make.  O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution. 



There are many issues swirling around the separation of church and state.  Christian theocracy will be kept in the marginal fringes where they belong.  Religious principles will not be incorporated into laws that seek to remove a woman's right to control her own body.  Freedom from religion is also at stake here as are hate crime definitions that provide protection for Moslems in the US.  That is the freedom the cons overlook every time. 

You may not direct me anywhere in history on this subject that would attempt to blur the division between military and diplomatic initiatives.  Hello.  These are mutually exclusive concepts and one is designed to prevent the other.  Got it?  Where is JMs diplomacy?  In the past 16 years, which party has demonstrated the ability to balance the budget and create surplus.  Hey sambo, who turned a $559 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit in just 8 years?  Looks like there already has been a trillion-dollar screw-up that the next administration will be having to clean up.  Wonder which party has the most credibility on this one?  

Your prescription for poverty sounds like it was lifted straight out of O's plan.  Read it before you try to claim it for the party who would ridicule it.  My post ends here because the remainder of yours is recycled communist/socialist innuendo that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.  And the top of the evening to you too, dear. 

Isn't this the first time either of them has broken the 50-mark?
nm
No dog? ANOTHER campaign promise broken?
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" will "not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill".

That's good, Obama. Some leadership! And blame it on the legislature. That's your MO, isn't it,Obama? Blame everything on everyone else.

You love to have your cake and eat it too, don't you, you pathetic L O S E R.
Yet another campaign promise broken..... sm



This originally included pictures, but apparently they would not post here.

 

A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!



Michelle One




On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.



We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:



“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”



Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.



The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:




Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.



The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”

 




Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.



Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip!




 

I solved the problem with the broken link
When I first clicked the link I noticed the OOPS! page not found, so I looked at the address bar of the URL and the link had a " at the end of it. So I erased the " after the htm and it worked just find.

Here is the link

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
More like Clinton's broken promise to cut our taxes

That little campaign platform that he would cut our taxes (middle income) when elected.  Within days after being elected he raised our taxes to the highest ever in record history.


Also, according the to U.S. Treasury website that tracks the national debt, there was never a surplus because the debt rose every year.  I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but that is just the facts in black and white


During Clinton the National Debt was:






















































Fiscal
Year
Year
Ending
National Debt Deficit
FY1993  09/30/1993  $4.411488 trillion  
FY1994  09/30/1994  $4.692749 trillion  $281.26 billion
FY1995  09/29/1995  $4.973982 trillion  $281.23 billion
FY1996  09/30/1996  $5.224810 trillion  $250.83 billion
FY1997  09/30/1997  $5.413146 trillion  $188.34 billion
FY1998  09/30/1998  $5.526193 trillion  $113.05 billion
FY1999  09/30/1999  $5.656270 trillion  $130.08 billion
FY2000  09/29/2000  $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion
FY2001  09/28/2001  $5.807463 trillion  $133.29 billion


As you can clearly see, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that he subsequently turned into a deficit.  Its true the budget was "almost" balanced in 2000, but it never reached zero, let alone a positive number.  Also, the growing deficit started in the Clinton budget, not the first year of the Bush admin.


To understand what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt.  Therefore I will attach a link that explains this.


I do know a lot of people really liked Bill Clinton as a President.  No doubt about that.  He had charisma and was very mesmerizing to listen to him speak, but you just can't toss out facts.


http://www.letxa.com/articles/16


P.S., this article states you can access the US Treasury website to see for yourself.


No idea....looked like maybe a broken blood vessel?
It DID look bad.
Just for the record
I felt the same way about the war before he was killed. It is wrong, its based on lies, and its immoral. So okay to lie about reasons for going to war, not okay to lie about sex, okay to let the perps of 09/11 go free, not okay to try the perps of the first World Trade bombing and let em rot in jail after a trial as that is not tough enuf on terror, okay to spy without warrants on Americans..okay to sit and eat cake and play guitar while New Orleans drowns, Then tell Brownie heckuva job while people die in the Superdome...I mean whats it gonna take?

And yes, I did rather explode at the Xmas isnt treating me nice comment..that hit a nerve bigtime for me.

And also for the record, I would be just as upset were Bush a dem or green or libertarian..this administration has done more damage to this country than I thought was possible. This isnt about political parties,this is about America and our constitution, our ideals and everything this country is built on.
For the record, neither am I....
Just an American married to an Iranian refugee who fled political persecution under the current regime. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.

This post is not "news" but rather a brief yet accurate description of the complex nature of Iranian politics. No sources you can try to attack. Sorry about that.
Not quite sure what you mean when you say you "know" politics every which way and that you "kick butt at it."

It comes as no surprise that you would not be interested in any viable information on this subject, since you seem to be perfectly comfortable in characterizing US-Iranian diplomatic initiatives as dealing with madmen who hate America for its freedoms (gag me). Sounds like sound byte mentality to me...again nothing new under heaven, coming from an Ann Coulter wannabe who thinks that former POW patriots are automatically qualified to be president.

By the way, throwing around a bit of sarcasm about radical Islam and infidels does not exactly qualify as a total butt kick. So I'm like you...not interested in futher pursuit of this nonsense.
Thank you so much...I will...and for the record....
I don't care what you think, nor do I care if anybody cares what I think. The babies need a voice. And why that irritates all of you so much....hmmmm.
For the record -

While I am a supporter of Obama, I want to emphasize that I am not a coldhearted murderer, that I do not advocate watching babies die, that I do not go out and actively support abortions of any kind (early or late). 


I also do not feel that Obama is sitting there right now saying to himself, I wonder how many babies I can let die today.  I think that the relationship he has with God is worked out between him and God and if he has worked this issue out in his own mind and feels comfortable with his decision, then that is his personal decision.  I do not think that he is the be all and end all in the decision making process for the rest of us.  I think that he has just decided that it should be an individual choice for a woman to decide what to do with her own body...


I do not want to see abortions once again be illegal in the United States.  How many young, naive, and stupid girls (children mostly) died when they chose to have an illegal abortion rather than go to their families and admit that they had made mistakes and ask for help?  How many women died or were permanently mutilated and could never have children again because after they were raped and became pregnant, they could not face having that child, and they chose to have an illegal abortion?


I don't believe in abortion, I didn't choose to have an abortion when I got pregnant at 15, but I do believe that every woman should have the right to choose what she does with her own body - if she does not want to carry a child, then she should not be forced to by the government. 


Now, I think we can go on and on about this forever, and we will never agree, or we can remember that abortion will not be outlawed by any president that is elected, and go on to argue the issues that will be on the front burner for the next couple of years and decide who will serve us best there. 


For the record........... sm
I do have filtered internet access at home for my kids, and I have taught them that looking at pictures of naked women/men is unacceptable, but what happens when my 12-year-old son goes to the public library to check out a book and happens to walk behind someone who is accessing p*rn on the free access library computer? How do I protect my child against that? And what happens if that person happens to be a pervert who exposes himself to my child? Am I supposed to lead my child around the library with a blindfold on his eyes? Whose rights are being trampled on there?

Behavioral problems? No, friend. It is natural curiosity of a 12-year-old to learn about the opposite sex, what they look like unclothed and that is nothing new. Naturally, they won't cop a look at mom getting out of the shower because that would be wrong on so many levels for a young boy, but they will look at anonymous women on the internet, given the chance. We need to take that chance away from them until they are more grounded in their moral beliefs and can control such urges themselves. If the government allows free access to objectionable material at school (where I can't hold his hand all day) or in the public library (where he should be able to check out a book without fear of glimpsing something objectionable) then I really have to wonder at the moral base of our government. As someone pointed out, they work for me, not the other way around.
I think he's going for the record for...(sm)
number of lies in one speech
For the record

1.  I'm not a Republican, but a conservative who votes for the candidate of either party I think will do the job properly.  This often is a Republican, but not always.


2.  I did not realize board space was rationed, or that any of us was taking more than our share.  Please explain these guidelines. 


3.  When you see a post under a moniker that usually upsets you, feel free to skip reading it.  That way you will not be offended.  And if you don't read it, you will not respond to it and maybe the thread will die out. 


4.  When something is broadcast that I feel will raise my blood pressure, I use one of those little on/off/channel thingies to eliminate the threat.  I don't holler that it has no business on the airwaves.  Try to think of this board in the same way.


5.  However, if you wish to debate an issue, bring it on.  That's my understanding of what this forum is for.


 


Not at all. Just trying to set the record straight. sm
As to what the board monitor REALLY said, since the left sometimes has comprehension problems and all.