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

Brunson didn't post that. someone else did.

Posted By: sm on 2005-11-28
In Reply to: Here is the post..sorry it didnt come through - gt

.


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 read Brunson's post. You are being disingenuous. SM
and I am pretty sure you know it.
I guess I didn't take B's post that way. SM
I use God as a comparison when I am really trying to make a point. I think that is what was going on, but only B can answer that.  At any rate, I agree with B.
Perhaps you didn't READ my post
I said -- keep it the hell out of politics.
You're welcome to claim whomever you'd like as your Saviour in the privacy of your own home and the community of your own church.
You didn't read my post
I was referring to people I talk to, as I stated.   I don't generally talk to Churchill or Chomsky.  In fact, I don't even pay much attention to them, nor should you.  Just as I don't pay much if any attention to crazy right-wingers.  Just common sense.
FYI--I didn't post the comment above this.sm
I think this was a mistake. Is this you Observer?

P.S. If there is another person posting with the Democrat moniker let me know and I will change mines.
I didn't post this.....someone used my initials...sm
x nice try.
Why didn' you post a message?
I'm not sure why you wrote Henry Kissinger but then didn't write anything. If Obama can come up with when Henry Kissinger said that to him I will take back my original post. All I'm saying is Kissinger was interviewed and he said he never said it. You should take him at his word. If Obama says something I believe him. Maybe Obama really believed Kissinger said this.

Obama says he cares about the people. He cares that people needs jobs, decent healthcare, and not to lose their homes. He said he is going to work towards getting this fixed. I believe him.
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/
You didn't address your post
to Christians exclusively. If that was what you wanted, maybe you should take it over to the faith board, will everyone will gush and agree with you.
It didn't post for some reason; will try again

Very Good for Today: cartoon from 50 yrs ago "Count your Isms"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY


Does anyone else have this happen as well?  It says it posted successfully, & doesn't show up.  Just curious.


Thanks!


 


Why didn't you post this yesterday?
Or the day before? Didn't feel the love until Obama got elected?
Actually, you didn't read the post then
Didn't say she was a liar. There is a difference with calling someone a liar and saying you don't believe them.

She over did it with the drama. Sure maybe she donated to charities on her own, but all the drama about contributing to the greater care, organizing for charity, painted and nailing carpeting in "poverty stricken homes" as her "gift to her children" oh yes, all while she didn't have a pot to you know what in, all while making only 5.30 an hour. And on top of all that she moved in with her parents to take care of her dying father while herself working full-time as a supervisor several states away (wow what a commute each day that must have been). On and on an on an on. Could it have happened? Sure anything could happen. Do I believe it personally? Not in my lifetime. But that's not saying it didn't happen. Just sounds like she should be awarded the model citizen of the century award.

BTW - there is a clear difference between saying you don't believe someone and them attacking you personally.

So I'd boo-hoo on yourself.
Guess you didn't see the post I did below

showing that Bush tried to regulate the industry as far back as 2001, but the dems would have none of it....those most opposed were all on the "take"; i.e., getting thousands of dollars in contributions from FM/FM.....or don't you believe it even when it comes from their own mouths?


Open your eyes and listen, or do you need a hearing test?


you really didn't need to post describing yourself
we had enough of you yesterday. Sometimes it's best to leave things alone and not comment at all.
Sorry, the link didn't post.....
In a nutshell, Hawaii has passed "Islam Day" law....

Where is their "Christianity Day"?

Where's the loud mouth ACLU on this?

This country is heading to he!! in a handbasket!


Thanks, Brunson. sm
I also enjoy your posts, and I find your tone to be generally reasonable and logical. Like you, I cannot understand the reason for the big fracas when the obvious solution to the problem would seem to be to retire to one's own board if the debate becomes too heated, and I think it is a shame that anyone has had to feel driven away. I had hoped that dividing the boards would provide for calmer and more rationale debate, but that certainly hasn't happened.

Whoever chooses to leave or to stay, I hope we can at some point reach a reasonable level of discourse on these boards so that we can all feel free to voice our opinions respectfully.

You obviously didn't really read her post...what's happened
You used to be a pretty straightforward poster even though we were often at odds.  Now you seem nasty.
I didn't really have an intention. That post just caught my eye. nm

You didn't respond to Yepper's post.

I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t


Ooops, I just reposted this. I didn't see your post. sm
Cutting Medicaid and student loans but has hundreds of billions while throwing hundreds of billions at Iraq.
That's the second time you addressed something I didn't post. sm
I thought the Chickenhawk article was brilliant though.  I wish I had posted it.
Didn't quite catch the drift of this post.
su
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
your post explains why you didn't think it was funny
Crats just don't have a sense of humor like the rest of us. PS - I am a liberal. If there is one equally as funny about the conservatives I would post. But pretty much all of these are true - and funny.
Evidently you didn't read the post....
no one said a black person wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama (HELLO.....Steele, etc., etc.).
My post just zooooomed right past you didn't it?
Why am I not surprised? I said that both of them were moronic posts, in case (what do I mean, in case?) you didn't catch that.

As for the reference to "par", I take it you golf. Then you'll understand this: Eat my niblick.
I didn't bother to read your post....
I couldn't get past your heading "staying on the subject" .... the only "subject" is you..... Obama's "subject". You probably don't get that either! LOL
Brunson, I think you missed
 the point. Democrat was being I believe satirical and quite humorous at that. No notorized documents or right-wing-approved web sites or links are needed here...and she is right, if Hillary or any other Democrat jaywalks we will hear endless monologue on the moral decay of the left. Chill.
you mean Brunson/American
you might get challenged to a duel.
Brunson was a moderator??
Well, that sure explains a lot, doesn't it...
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. :)
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?

My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?


 


You evidently didn't read my post - it was not a question
of if you think he's done harm. He has, it's a fact and no matter how much you want to cover it up you can't. You think bowing to our enemy, telling other countries we are selfish, and that we don't want our jobs so they can have them, tripling our deficit (nothing Bush had to do with -sorry can't pull that crap anymore), lining the pockets of his rich friends and CEOs, filling his cabinet with unqualified crooks and thieves, and the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the first 90 days. So the question was how many more years will it take to undo the harm. You can keep drinking the kool-aid thinking socialistm/communism is fine. It is not. Even the other countries keep telling him - "Don't go there, it is not a path you want to take", while other country leaders who are telling him not to go there are saying "why aren't you listening to us. We've been there and done that and it doesn't work".

Hence, how many more years will it take to undo the harm he has already done (and its only been less than 90 days). My guess is at least 2. It's going to be hard once he's out of office, but I do have faith the country will bounce back as long as we have some decent politicians in the office and take congress out from the control of the crats.
Your flame went out, Brunson burner.

You apparently think I'm gt, but I'm not. 


But keep defending the behavior of your cohorts.


You know nothing about me or my mindset, Brunson Burnout.
You're looking and acting like an idiot.  Go back home to the conservative board where idiots rule.
Yet another conservative LIE Brunson Burnout.

Sincere apologies, wrong board. NM





[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups]      [Politics] --> [Conservatives]


Posted By: Libby on 2005-09-03,
In Reply to: They will never stop. Look at the post below where Brunson hopes that somebody is *hounded* off - Libby

NM


You're so predictable, Nan or should I say *Brunson*

On June 15th, you accused me of being *Teddy* (which I wasn't), just like I'm not Stephen Crockett.  In fact, before reading your post on the Conservative Board, I never knew he existed, and I even told him that when I emailed him regarding your misleading use of his post on another topic because I felt he had a right to defend himself, as it's cruel and unusual punishment for anyone to be compared to Ann Coulter. 


It seems he feels that manipulating people's votes to favor one party or another should be a very serious crime, punishable with the death penalty.  (I thought you guys were all about the death penalty; I'm shocked.)  I can't say I disagree with him.  In other words, there was a context to his quotes; he had a reason for saying what he said, as opposed to Coulter who wants to have Supreme Justices killed, John Murtha killed and thinks the Oklahoma City bombing should have occurred in the New York Times Building -- all to assassinate people who merely dared to DISAGREE the almighty Coultergeist -- not because they had committed a crime that stripped Americans of their rights.


As far as accusing me of impersonating him or *Teddy,* I'm sure the administrator can verify that I wasn't posting as either poster, if the administrator chooses to do so.  Also, you probably should realize that when you make whacko accusations like this, it diminishes the credibility you have when you post other things. 


In any event, I'd like to personally thank you for posting his post.  He now has a new fan, thanks to you. 


Have a nice day.


Thanks for taking up for me Brunson, the problem is SM
I didn't post any of these posts.  Someone is playing a stupid joke and not a very funny one.  However, since Lurker seems content to know me so well, I am not sure who got the real butt of the joke ;)
Brunson...remember Teddy?
Teddy and Taiga are one in the same, though she adamantly denied it until she tripped herself up and finally had to admit it. However, the truth eventually catches up and she just had to be her...if you know what I mean. Would not surprise me if she was the one hounding you. The Teddy side of the personality definitely has/had a mean streak.
I didn't post a link, I posted a smard alek

reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly.  It was dripping in sarcasm.  LOL  I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it.  I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.


We can all agree to disagree.  What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves.  I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.


I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration.  I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies.  I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration.  What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand.  AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty.  That didn't work too well  under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it.  That's an issue to  me.  No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that.  Why?  I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.


backwards, you didn't read the post, just the headline PAY ATTENTION
loser
Guess you didn't read the post I made from a few days ago.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.


Did you read that report?  Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.


Sorry, but this post does not hold water IMHO.


You're full of S**T, Brunson Burner

How's it feel?  This is what you posted a little over a week ago to a person who mistakenly posted on your board and apologized for it.  You tell them to leave, yet you won't leave the liberal board.


It would be so nice if you weren't here. SM







[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]


Posted By: Brunson on 2005-09-03,
In Reply to:
They will never stop. Look at the post below where Brunson hopes that somebody is *hounded* off - Libby


Perhaps you enjoy stories with no kind of facts to them. I am sure you probably do. The fact remains, nanananana comes on here and tells us to stay off YOUR board which we have already done and here you are. Tell me again, WHO is it who will NEVER stop? You are looking like a fool. Since the high road seems to have disappeared for you, try the low road. Any road. Just go.


Well Brunson, I've been posting on the politics board on mtstars sm
for a few years, since it was created. It has took some tough skin - really tough to debate Nan and AG and the others of their ilk. Though I must say their unwaivering love and confidence in President Bush is almost admirable and I can't help but respect a person who knows what they believe in and stand strong for it; at the very same time, not being open to other's view points is close minded.

I have seen in my day AG (AKA Bush Supporter), Nan, and more of their coherts run quite a few liberal minded, even meek speaking posters and they did it with no regard to their feelings. They like to make the debate a personal one, so I would say by looking at what the trolls did to them was a healthy dose of their own medicine, and by the way from what I've read I didn't see death wished on anyone. That's yet another trick of theirs, again you would have to know them, to demonize everything the democrats/liberals say.


I thought Brunson's reponse was succint and summed...
it all up. And for you to assume on the basis of one post the quality of a person certainly goes a long way to defining the quality of yourself. I do not think Brunson cares to debate the issue...opinion was stated, succint and summed it up.

You have a good day now.
I thought Brunson made a good point down below.
One of the reasons the antiwar protesters have not been taken more seriously is that they have personalized this against Bush and not against war.  I do think it is possible to separate the two.  But I also think that protesting in the streets puts our military at risk, in fact I know that it does.  The pen is a mighty weapon.  Senators and congressmen and women want to be reelected.  Sitting in front of the WH with a bullhorn and shouting obscenities and name calling to the President of the United States is not going to ever work.  And it shows a distinct lack of respect, if not for the man, then for the office and the White House itself. 
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't

his own personal reasons.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php


The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.


Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."


Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.


In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.


"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"


Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.


Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.


Conversations With Bush The Candidate


Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.


The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.


I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."


Debating The Timeline For War


But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.


The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.



On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"


I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."


"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …


"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.


Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.



Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"


Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.


Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."


Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.


Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.



 


P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.

Reprinted in Boston Globe.  Sorry!