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

Did you see that she had a polar bear lapel pin on today? Good job Sarah! nm

Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-10-14
In Reply to: I should hope that SP - gourdpainter

.


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

Now you're a polar bear lover?
xx
USA Today/Gallup poll on Sarah Palin

Here is the link for the full results:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-30-palin-poll_N.htm


Essentially she has given McCain a bit of a boost, but no more boost than Biden gave Obama.  I found the polling of Democrat women/HRC supporters to be amusing, considering what I think the McCain was hoping to accomplish:


Among Democratic women — including those who may be disappointed that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination — 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely.


You bear Thomas, we bear Ginsburg.
x
I accidentally swallowed my lapel pin!

I needed a good laugh today.
LOL!!!  This was great.  Thanks for posting it. 
Thanks for that . . . I needed a good laugh today

HAHA


BWAAHAHAHA, somebody needs their meds today! Good one! nm
.
Thank you for that .... I needed a good laugh today.

If SP had her way, the only place we'd be seeing polar bears
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sarah Palin vs the polar bears, despipte scientific evidence of their endangerment...as usual.
That's a fact. Oil over environment/polar bears.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/you-go-girl-alaska-gop-gov-will-sue-bush-administration-over-polar-bear-listing/

Yep. She as (Neo)Con as they come. Not just this issue. Pretty much across the board. McCain was trying to shore up that side of the party with her while at the same time reining in the Hillary supporters and women's vote. Where this logic is coming from is anybody's guess, but sounds like a Karl Rove stunt to me.
Palin says kill all polar bears
and ship all MT jobs overseas
Wrong. I love the environment, polar bears and
I read it before I posted it. I do no agree with her logic. She is talking out of both sides of her mouth like the bridge to nowhere thing (for it one minute, against it the next when that position became more politically viable). If she is so big on development, why did she strip funding from more than 300 development initiatives in her haste to exact revenge on her predecessor? Fact is, she has very little credibility as far as I'm for a number of reasons.

I simply provided the other poster with a link, voiced an opinion and left it up to to make up her own mind about the article. So...go crucify yourself.
Aww dang it! I looove polar bears. My boyfriend will fix that too! nm
x
Bear in mind....
it is not the hothead in the white house who "pushes the button." It is your duly elected Congress. If the Dem majority can keep their collective fingers off the button it doesn't matter who is President. He cannot go to war by himself. I cannot see Congress, after Iraq, EVER agreeing to go to war unless we are attacked again in a very aggressive way and there is no doubt who did the attacking. But, whatever happens...it will be the decision of your duly elected Congress...not the President, whoever he or she may be.
We do have the right to bear arms in this
I said that because the poster made a comment and guns and ammo, so I told poster many people have that...what is the big deal? If you don't own firearms, that's your business but we do still have the right to have guns in our homes.
Well, the truth is probably hard to bear. sm
Until the administrator asks me to leave, I will just keep posting.  I am not making personal attacks against posters. I am following the guidelines.  Besides, liberals are the turn tail chickens.  I don't let people run me off!
Yes, they do need an egg. And a woman to bear the child.
talking about 2 men who want a child. The surrogate only has to be a woman with a uterus. Her sexual orientation, and even her marital status, do not matter. That does not constitute a 'sexual relationship', though. She is artificially inseminated. And of course there is also adoption.
"we" blame Bush for what he did wrong, sorry if you cannot bear to....sm
take the blinders off. I thought Bill Clinton was a great Preident and humanitarian, but a LOUSY husband, but the country did not marry Clinton, and the Pubs with Ken Star and his WITCH HUNT went after Bill for what he did in his private sexual life that had nothing to do with his job as President. Wow, we impeached the guy and spent millions of tax dollars doing it!!! Yay! But he still led us one of the most prosperous times in American History budget-wise, and if he is kinky in his bedroom, so what? Do you want someone in your bedroom? What do you guys use as a measure for success? Blind loyalty was what REALLY got all the people to drink the Kool-Aid down in Jonestown, and with all the denial about the Bush years, I feel like we are down there in that jungle.
Someone to rule over us for her life time? I dont think so. Clarence Thomas is enough to bear with

Miers' Answer Raises Questions



  • Legal experts find a misuse of terms in her Senate questionnaire 'terrible' and 'shocking.'

  • By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


    WASHINGTON — Asked to describe the constitutional issues she had worked on during her legal career, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers had relatively little to say on the questionnaire she sent to the Senate this week.

    And what she did say left many constitutional experts shaking their heads.

    At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights Act, she said, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

    But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have the same proportion of blacks, Latinos and Asians as the voting population.

    That's a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation requirement under the equal protection clause, said New York University law professor Burt Neuborne, a voting rights expert. If a first-year law student wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was unacceptable.

    Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, also an expert on voting rights, said she was surprised the White House did not check Miers' questionnaire before sending it to the Senate.

    Are they trying to set her up? Any halfway competent junior lawyer could have checked the questionnaire and said it cannot go out like that. I find it shocking, she said.

    White House officials say the term proportional representation is amenable to different meanings. They say Miers was referring to the requirement that election districts have roughly the same number of voters.

    In the 1960s, the Supreme Court adopted the one person, one vote concept as a rule under the equal protection clause. Previously, rural districts with few voters often had the same clout in legislatures as heavily populated urban districts. Afterward, their clout was equal to the number of voters they represented. But voting rights experts do not describe this rule as proportional representation, which has a specific, different meaning.

    Either Miers misunderstood what the equal protection clause requires, or she was using loose language to say something about compliance with the one-person, one-vote rule, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law. Either way, it is very sloppy and unnecessary. Someone should have caught that.

    Proportional representation was a focus of debate in the early 1980s. Democrats and liberal activists were pressing for Congress to change the Voting Rights Act to ensure minorities equal representation on city councils, state legislatures and in the U.S. House.

    They were responding to a 1980 case in which the Supreme Court upheld an election system in Mobile, Ala., that had shut out blacks from political power. The city was governed by a council of three members, all elected citywide. About two-thirds of voters were white and one-third black, but whites held all three seats.

    The Supreme Court said Mobile's system was constitutional, so long as there was no evidence it had been created for a discriminatory purpose.

    The equal protection clause does not require proportional representation, the court said in a 6-3 decision. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said the decision gave blacks the right to cast meaningless ballots.

    In response, Congress moved to change the Voting Rights Act to permit challenges to election systems that had the effect of excluding minorities from power. The Reagan administration opposed those efforts, saying they would lead to a proportional representation rule.

    Congress adopted a hazy compromise in 1982. It said election systems could be challenged if minorities were denied a chance to elect representatives of their choice…. Provided that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion of the population.

    This law put pressure on cities such as Dallas and Los Angeles and many states to redraw their electoral districts in areas with concentrations of black or Latino voters. The number of minority members of Congress doubled in the early 1990s after districts were redrawn.

    In Dallas, Miers supported a move to create City Council districts so black and Latino candidates would have a better chance of winning seats.

    She came to believe it was important to achieve more black and Hispanic representation, Hasen said. She could have a profound impact as a justice if she brought that view to the court. So from the perspective of the voting rights community, they could do a lot worse than her.

    White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also emphasized that Miers' experience was more important than her terminology.

    Ms. Miers, when confirmed, will be the only Supreme Court Justice to have actually had to comply with the Voting Rights Act, she said.


    Actually I don't think it's fair that smokers bear the brunt of paying for children's healt
    And no, I'm not a current smoker. It just seems unfair that a single group should pay for most of the costs. Why not tax soda pop or junk snack food? That's contributing to the childhood obesity episode - and poor health - so why not make those products pay for SCHIP?
    Sarah Palin makes Sarah Palin look stupid!
    The Democrats did not make Sarah Palin look stupid. Sarah Palin does a fine job of looking stupid without help from anyone. All she has to do is open her mouth!
    is that you Sarah?

    Finished with your good friend "Charlie" already and now here to share your words of wisdom?


     


    Go Sarah!!!! ....sm
    If SNL is spoofing her, they must think she's a major contender.

    Yippee.....

    By the way, I haven't seen SNL since the early years, is it any good anymore? Have they spoofed Obama yet?

    Or are they giving him a walk, as most liberal type show/media things are doing?


    (I can't play this, as my flash player is old....oh well....I'm sure it was funny, in a derogatory type of way, if you ladies enjoyed it that much.....)

    let Sarah

    take his place in debate with  Barack Obama.


     


    Let Sarah be Sarah....sm
    She's the bright ray of hope in this election. She's the one REAL person out there on either ticket.

    If they just let Sarah be Sarah, she will just bowl over Joe Biden tomorrow night.

    I bet she will too.


    She's got the most common sense, and right now, we need someone who is just like us, representing us, in Washington.


    I'd vote for her over McCain in a second....wish like heck she was at the top of the ticket, because she is, the real deal. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.



    You mean like Sarah in the
    x
    So Sarah will have a son-in-law...

    ...and a mother-out-law.


    John McCain can't even bring himself to endorse her now, which I think is the funniest thing of all.


    thanks Sarah

    real patriotic idears you keep regurgitating to keep your name in the news.


     


    Yes, and I believe Sarah is a least a US citizen.
    nm
    Sarah Palin
    Sarah Palin has just announced her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and will be marrying the baby's father!
    Sarah Palin was asking because

    the voters were concerned about the language in some of them and felt it inappropriate for their children.  This was to help keep bad language away from children.  Not get rid of them because a certain race, nationality, etc. wrote them.  The Nazis burned books written by Jews.  This is entirely different. 


    As for my supposed untruth about Obama being Muslim at one time:


    Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.


    Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, the Banjarmasin Post reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims."


    The Catholic school: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school."


    Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.


    Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims).


    This along with his association with sketchy people including Ayers and his 20-year attendance to a church that promotes hates messages.....I feel I am justly right to be concerned about Obama and have reason to not trust him one iota.


    Cool....go Sarah!!! sm


    http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-charlie-gibson.html
    Go Sarah and Joe!!! Go McCain...All the way to the


    Go ahead and call 'em gimmicks if y'all want.


    They're the real deal, and a lot of real Americans embrace them.



    Sarah Palin says:
    “And that’s cruel and it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks, if they came away with it taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It is not fair and not right.”   Hmmm...
    Who is Sarah and what are idears
    My actual name is Mary. I have never used Mary and the last time I posted something on this board was the middle of December. Think around the 15th or 16th when I replied to someone, and the last time I wrote an original message was the beginning of December. It would serve you well to think before you acuse someone of something.

    You don't like my post, fine, that's one thing. But to acuse someone of doing whatever it is your acusing me of, well that's just a bit arrogant on your part. Your reply was a bit confusing too. Were you cutting me down because you don't like that I don't use my real name (never have and never will - get over it) or you didn't like my idea. And if I wanted to keep my name in the news, wouldn't I be posting with same name over and over and over.

    I particularly like the idea of the US dividing into separate countries. Especially with a lot of the posters on this board. I've never seen so many people who are willing to destroy our country and everything our country was founded upon and I would prefer not to live in the same country as they do without actually having to move. I don't agree in socialism. They do. Therefore by keeping their president and his socialistic viewpoints they can have him, love him, worship him, and dance around in circles every day while he's in office. I'd rather have a president that shares the same values as a lot of people like me do.

    So...back to my original idea. It would serve you well not to assume things from now on, as you know what they say about people who assume.
    Who is Sarah and what are idears
    My actual name is Mary. I have never used Mary and the last time I posted something on this board was the middle of December. Think around the 15th or 16th when I replied to someone, and the last time I wrote an original message was the beginning of December. It would serve you well to think before you acuse someone of something.

    You don't like my post, fine, that's one thing. But to acuse someone of doing whatever it is your acusing me of, well that's just a bit arrogant on your part. Your reply was a bit confusing too. Were you cutting me down because you don't like that I don't use my real name (never have and never will - get over it) or you didn't like my idea. And if I wanted to keep my name in the news, wouldn't I be posting with same name over and over and over.

    I particularly like the idea of the US dividing into separate countries. Especially with a lot of the posters on this board. I've never seen so many people who are willing to destroy our country and everything our country was founded upon and I would prefer not to live in the same country as they do without actually having to move. I don't agree in socialism. They do. Therefore by keeping their president and his socialistic viewpoints they can have him, love him, worship him, and dance around in circles every day while he's in office. I'd rather have a president that shares the same values as a lot of people like me do.

    So...back to my original idea. It would serve you well not to assume things from now on, as you know what they say about people who assume.
    Does this mean Sarah gets another raise?...LOL

    *Unlike President George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the two bills when they came up in the last session of Congress, President-elect Barack Obama has embraced them.*


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_co/pay_equity


    I can't wait to see who all opposes this bill.  I hope they plaster them all over the news.


    Sarah was pointed out....(sm)
    because a) it was funny; b) she is a female; and c) she herself just got a raise (by a committee she formed for just that purpose) just since the election while Alaska is taking a big hit financially because the price of oil went down. 
    Sarah is still campaigning...(sm)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/28/sarah-palin-political-action-committee


    I soooo hope she runs in 2012.  How about Rush/Palin 2012.....ROFL....


    So what if Sarah complains, BB.
    nm
    One more reason I like Sarah Palin....
    ....I betcha she makes a mean batch of cookies...




    (and I won't say who doesn't, but I'm sure you all know)
    I just read that Sarah Palin sm

    sued Bush, etc., over making the Polar bears endangered species because it will hurt oil drilling.  Has anyone else heard or read this?  (Maybe it is old news and has been discussed here.  I have been out of town and thankfully aware from my computer for the last day and a half.)  If this is true than I am appalled.  I guess she is not so new the whole for big oil thing and all.  Most hunters and fishermen that I know want to help protect the environment.


    I know she is anti-abortion, but did not know until just recently that she is also anti-abortion for cases of rape and incest.  I think that is very extreme.  Though, to be quite honest, I do think in most rape cases you are given the morning after pill. 


    The more I read and learn, the less I am liking.  I was kind of excited at first.


    If it is so important, where was it before Sarah Palin...
    entered the race? Come on. You are trying to somehow add validity to making a 17-year-old political fodder. Now, after the cat is out of the bag, the political spin is being put on it. Go ahead and put the focus there...no one is going to be fooled by this. People who engage it in are still going to look like what they are.
    Sarah Palin is gold!!!!!!!
    .
    Savaging Sarah Palin...
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080903/cm_uc_crbbox/op_237245
    Fine, put Sarah in his place. She has more
    nm
    You would think Sarah Palin is running for the top
    nm
    Why do they hate Sarah Palin so?........sm
    Hi there. Very thoughtful and intelligent questions you're asking. I'm going to post the following column I found, that explains this phenomenon very clearly, I think.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/09/09/why_do_they_hate_sarah_palin_so?page=full&comments=true

    Why do they hate Sarah Palin so?

    by Andrew Tallman




    I assume it is unnecessary to answer the logically prior question of whether or not they hate Sarah Palin. The level of vitriol flung at her over the past week and a half by critics in every liberal outlet ranging from The New York Times to Air America is particularly awe-inspiring given that this is all the longer they’ve even known her name. Ordinarily, such hatred takes years to cultivate. The force and acceleration of their vehemence virtually demands psychoanalysis. Since this sport is in vogue, I’ll give my diagnostic skills a shot at the trophy.
    Preface: There Is a Pathology

    The natural first reaction of a Palin-hater to this column is to deny the hatred. They will say it’s her politics, her religion, or possibly the whiff of scandal some have managed to ladle upon her. But if they’re honest with themselves, they’ll have to admit three simple facts.

    First, the reasons they give aren’t the reasons they hate. If they didn’t have these, they’d manufacture others. There’s an old story about a man asking to borrow his neighbor’s lawn mower and being told, “No, I’m making potato soup.” “What does that have to do with me borrowing your lawn mower?” the incredulous man replies. “Nothing, but if I don’t want to loan you my lawn mower, one excuse is just as good as another.” Likewise, Governor Palin is not hated because of whatever reasons they offer. These are afterthoughts to an animosity which is embarrassed to admit it was born prior to reason. Hence, refuting them will prove futile.

    Second, even those who persist in asserting such reasons as their motive will have to admit that all of them put together still can’t justify the disproportionate vigor of their attacks upon her. To use an aging phrase, this is the politics of personal destruction; a nuclear response to what their own arguments admit is a merely conventional threat.

    Third, no one can hate this deeply this quickly. Conservatives generally despise certain political figures such as Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John Paul Stevens. But it’s taken us years, sometimes decades to detest these people. Similarly for liberals, contempt only begins to describe their feelings toward George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, and Antonin Scalia. But, again, at least such a sentiment has developed over time. It took Sarah Palin less than a week to receive treatment these men have taken years to earn. Such an immediate mauling of someone’s character says far more about the predators than about their prey.

    So, what explains this pathology? I have two mutually compatible theories.

    Theory 1: The Cult of Personality

    Barack Obama is the left’s messiah. Their hopes, their dreams and even their patriotism are at this point invested in him. He cannot be criticized. He cannot be joked about. And he most certainly cannot be mocked. All such response to him (perfectly normal with any other politician) is viewed as blasphemy rather than politics. Not only is the left salvifically invested in him, they secretly fear they have been too rash to the altar call. Calm reflection proves Barack Obama isn’t ready to be president yet, but who can resist the hope beyond hope that he’s more than just a golden voice reading a teleprompter?

    So when little Sarah Palin comes along and castigates him with condescending satire, they react as any devastated schoolgirl with a crush would. Her speech stated every major flaw with his candidacy. Not just honestly, but with a Reagenesque comedic flair. And since their deepest fear is that everything she said about him is right, the only option to reconsidering their betrothal was to destroy her.

    It’s pretty simple. If we disagree, you correct me. If I am silly, you ignore me. But if I articulate your own fears in attacking something you cherish irrationally, you excoriate me … as cover. As Robert Pirsig explained in his lovely novel on motorcycle maintenance, no one jumps up and down screaming that the sun will rise tomorrow. Highly emotional responses indicate fear and uncertainty, not the opposite.

    Sarah Palin’s on-target reductio of Barack Obama turned their messiah into a joke, earning the very predictable treatment a heretic deserves. Disabusing people of a savored fantasy always does.

    Theory 2: Her Non-Feminist Feminism

    I used to marvel at the rudeness so often publicly shown to parents with many children. But then I saw how the very existence of such families exposes the guilt and self-doubt others feel about their own decisions to stop having children. The surest way to avoid dealing with these stifled concerns is to assault the character or intelligence of parents who dare to expose them with their large families.

    So, too with Sarah Palin and the left. Her very life rebukes them.

    She has five children, two of them after the age of 40. When her infant son was diagnosed with Down syndrome, she chose life. And when her own daughter was discovered pregnant, she helped her choose life, too. Without ever saying a word about being pro-life (to say it would have been superfluous), she demolished all the common arguments used in favor of abortion and family planning, totemic doctrines of the left.

    But it’s more than just doctrine. It’s that so many people on the left have condoned abortions, helped others obtain abortions, or even had abortions themselves in the very same circumstances under which Sarah Palin chose life. Honest people are an affront to liars. Law-abiders are an affront to criminals. And the woman who has made pro-life “choices” is a stinging affront to modern feminism, which has spent decades trying to convince women that an unwanted pregnancy is like a disease and the unborn child something like a parasite.

    They must demonize her because her choices so clearly condemn their own. Make no mistake, when your example disproves someone else’s deeply internalized rationalizations, they will try to destroy you. After all, the only other option would be to repent.
    Conclusion

    In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Nietzsche said, “Anyone who has looked deeply into the world may guess how much wisdom lies in the superficiality of men … let nobody doubt that whoever stands that much in need of the cult of surfaces must at some time have reached beneath them with disastrous results.” His critique of religion so perfectly fits probamaism that one is forced to conclude the latter is but a new flavor of the former.

    There may be other pathologies at play here, but these explain both the left’s tsunamic response and why it struck last Thursday morning. It was the speech, stupid.
    Probably because SNL is where Sarah Palin belongs. n/m
    s
    Sarah Palin has only to be herself to be disliked. sm
    She needs no help from anyone. She, by her own merits and lack thereof, is a despicable unacceptable candidate that insults all women by her having only the genitals in common with us, yet we are expected to say OH JOY, a woman rising to the top. Well not if it's Bush in a skirt "my friends." My fellow Americans, this is BS. No Palin no palin no palin. If we have a woman rise to the top of our government, let it be a woman who votes for equal pay for women, not against it like McCain voted. Let it be a woman who believes in a woman's right over her own body. I could go on and on. You all know the truth. Palin ruined McCain's chances, not that he had a lot. He also hurt himself by putting on that hero cape and flying to Washington to save the economy and looking like a fool.
    His grimaces and groans during the debates really hurt him too.
    Not to mention his 90 percent agreement with Bushonomics and policies.
    Pathetic my friends.
    Sarah Palin is great! -and she sure gets under the
    nm