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

He didn't say that. But some on this board have

Posted By: taken it out of context & spread rumors. on 2009-02-25
In Reply to: Can someone tell me why everyone says Obama is wanting the elderly to die? - Amanda




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

Wow! I didn't know we had psychics on this board?!
Let's see your degree in everything?!
Hah! I didn't even notice which board it was on.

My daughter is very conservative and we believe only left-wing nutcases get lip injections.  There.  Now it's political. 


JK! 


So didn't somebody on this board state earlier that
*
Then you didn't read the article on the conservative board. nuff said.

So you and your buds bash us on *your* board and suddenly, once you reach this board,

some respect?


You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*


Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.


You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.


That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS.  Your posts don't show respect.  They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.


You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?


Please.  Some of us aren't as stupid as you think we are.


You're becoming quite a bore.  You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight.  You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board.  Maybe that should work both ways.


Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all.  You believe in SUPERIORITY.  Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else.  Sheesh!  You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.


You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred. 


In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate.  I've seen them.  (I hope you don't chase them away, too.)  But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.


Talk about stench. Just read your very own posts.


Can we bring the board back to the true reason for the board

Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board – to share opinions of why we like our candidate.  Not bash and cut down others because they don’t agree with you.


I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc.  After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come.  Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.


I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates.  What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board.  Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin.  You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this “Geez, I’m allowed to have an opinion”.


Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin.  The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby.  Talk about just bizarre comments.  I thought what’s next, she’s an alien from another planet?  The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre.  Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations.  I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.


I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam.  Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics.  I’ve read “Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away”, “Sam, please let me know where you work” or “she must have her quota” or “sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the”  This childish rhetoric is getting old.  I’m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics.  If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate “fight and degrade” section.


I’ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming.  She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn’t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good.  Let people express his or her opinion and move on.  If you don’t like someone just ignore that person. “It’s not rocket science, you know” (I liked that statement)


I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right.  If you don’t agree with something and you post that you don’t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that’s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.


I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates.  That is how I’m learning about each one, but I don’t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason.  I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.


If you like to fight so much why don’t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face. 


Your on the wrong board - you need to preach on the faith board
You just delivered a sermon (or quote). Either way it doesn't belong here. What does this have to do with politics. The democrat and republican party did not start up until after the 1800s. Socialism also wasn't created until the 1800s.

To me your post describes the way humans should treat other humans. This has nothing to do with politics - imho.

Because you posted on the Main board not Politics board.
It was removed, as we do not have an option of moving from Main to Politics.

This could have easily been avoided had you posted on the correct board.

The response from another poster to not post political viewpoints on this board was becuase you posted it on the Main board.
the conservative board is a liberal board now
you all aren't happy until you infect everyone out there with your hatred.   It's not something I'd very proud of.
Politics board = political topics. Faith board = religious topics.

Please keep all religious/faith topics and discussions on the Faith board.  This would involve your beliefs, whether Christian or atheist, etc. 


The Politics board is strictly for political topics and discussions. 


Moderator


 


I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they

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.



 


If you leave our board, I'll leave your board.

Well when one board
makes threats against a sitting president the rules change quite a bit.....
Look down board. sm.
They have no real concept of war.  They don't understand that people are actually shooting at one another, and it affects families for decades, the price of so-called "Freedom" as he calls it.    They have the Texan attitude, go kick butt, and while none of their's are over there, they cannot experience the true consequences of war, just wave their little flags and have no idea that war is freaking WAR.  I hate this.  They are not conservative - what is conservative about running up the deficit to the degree that it is at now - that is certainly not conservative.  This war thing is just a CNN thing to them - something only happening on TV, something to occupy their time, they have no idea of how badly it can hurt and scar; they are as clueless as their leader.
You best look again at the other board.

I'm off the board
you have mistaken the above poster for me.
Again, I'm off the board

no other comments will be made by me other than to straighten out the fact that I'm not posting here anymore.


It's all over the board. nm

Come on over to the C-board
You will be understood and accepted there. You are casting your pearls before swine here. These people are not the mainstream in America, believe me.

I am Christian, but sympathize greatly with the plight of the Jewish people.
Oh yes, mam, right here on this board. SM
Him and his whole family.  Yessirree.  It happened. 
You must be new to the board...nm
//////////
This board
This has been a very intolerant board for years. I think it just gets worse at election time. I come here on and off, depending on how busy I am and how feisty I feel! They are intolerant, but I don't really care. I guess they think their nastiness is going to convince people to see things their way, NOT!

Go Obama!
Exactly ...but those on this board don't want
xx
Does anyone on this board
Because my understanding is that Obama is only raising taxes on people making more than this amount, & the increase would only be for the amount over 250K, & that rate would be the same as it was under Clinton.

On the one hand it's "taking from the rich & giving to the poor" -- & on the other hand, I can't get too upset because some millionaire is only going to get an 18-carat toilet bowl instead of a 24-carat-gold one. & there are so many loopholes in the tax laws, they're going to employ legions of accountants to make sure they write off enough to bring their taxes down to something they're more comfortable with anyway -- probably less than what I pay.

Obama has said a number of times that he wants to end tax breaks for companies that offshore. Now THAT affects me directly. It's an incentive to keep jobs in the US, & that seems to be the subject of a LOT of talk on this board of late.

I'm not registered as a Democrat. I'm actually a Libertarian, but I have a feeling that this election I'm going to vote Democratic. Sarah Palin clinched that deal. What a ditz. I'd be embarrassed to have her represent this country. If you haven't heard her talk yet, go to youtube & find her interview with Katie Couric, & read the NY Times for a long list of very eloquent, VERY conservative columnists who do not like her at all & who talk about the Republican party insiders who wanted her removed from the ticket because she is clearly unprepared to lead the country. What can you say about someone who cannot name a single Supreme Court decision besides Roe v Wade, who cannot name a single publication that contributed to her world view or political philosophy, who thinks that her geographic proximity to Russia constitutes a foreign policy credential, who does not know what causes global warming, who cannot even name a single piece of legislation her own running mate was responsible for in his 26 years in public office?? Good grief. McCain's underestimation of the American public's intelligence is demeaning & has destroyed any credibility he ever had with me, & believe me, he used to have some. I'm still waiting to hear her answer a single question with intelligence & depth, turn every question into an opportunity to spew her predigested, scripted talking points because she simply doesn't have anything else.

Anyway. I digress. The issue was taxes.
Not on this board, lol!
nm
then why are u still on the board nm
:)
I'm not sure it came from this board but (sm)

it is not someone that I have any friendship with, so I was just questioning if anyone was getting these. If I was positive it came from this board, I would have reported it.


Then why oh why are you on this board?
I see such race hating, race baiting, hatred, on and on. There are still people with racist issues -they are all over this board.
You just let everyone here on this board KNOW exactly HOW you think..
and I am glad to know that the majority of people here do not have your hateful and rabidly racist bent.
What about what YOU said on the conservative board?

I try not to visit the bog of eternal stench. Funny though...sm


The very people who whine about "intelligent debate" now have whole threads devoted to crying to their mommy about being asked to be respectful. Pitiful.


 


I agree - please only one board
I liked it so much better the other way. Being an independent who usually votes Republican, I like to see exchange of ideas, even if it gets somewhat heated at times. I think most people have enough sense to know that Americans have the right to their opinions, and enjoy a lively debate. That is JUST MY OPINION, if anyone cares.
Sorry, thought I was on the C board

I won't post here again....it was a mistake.  If you want to answer the question or flame me that's fine.  I'm not on my own computer right now, and flipped me back to this board....sorry.


Wrong board

Actually, I'm not sure you went to the wrong board at all.  If you chose "Politics" in general and you saw the headline of the post and clicked on it, you automatically wind up there and don't necessarily realize that's where you're at.  Even Nan and American Girl have done that, and I believe those errors of theirs is still on this page.


If this post of yours is an example of how you post, I can't understand why in the world you would be banned, but then again, I can't understand why three certain posters on that board get AREN'T banned, so I guess I just don't understand much about this place.  I note that they kept Nan's post calling someone a "slimy bottom dweller," as well as all their other posts where they attack posters.


My personal opinion is that if you want to be free to think independently and express that opinion without being ganged up on and attacked, then maybe you should continue to post on this board.  I personally am interested in what you have to say.  Although I just visited the Conservative board, and for the first time in a long time, find it to be a peaceful place where people are starting to debate again without being attacked by those three.  Unfortunately, I doubt that will last very long.  They will be back if they aren't already, and whatever goodness is there now will be once again destroyed and people won't be allowed to express their opinions without being attacked.


Again, I can't even begin to understand why you've been banned in the past, and if your post is an example of what the monitor had to "put up with," by all means PLEASE keep posting because I think you're definitely a breath of fresh air!  Welcome!! 


create another board
You know, what this bulletin *system* needs is a bashing board.  I used to post at a relatively calm board and some wanted to pick fights no matter what..The owner in her wisdom created a bashing board where those who have anger, upset, whatever and wanted to bash could and could also leave those other boards alone which did not want turmoil. Maybe the owners here could do that. I dont know who owns this board.  I have been told it no longer is owned by the owner of MTstars..Maybe if the owner reads this, he or she will create another board for **Political wars**..
You said: And some of that is very evident on this board.

WHERE IS IT EVIDENT ON THIS BOARD????


This is what you wrote: 


"Attacking and wishing family members to burn in hell, examining the adoption records of Roberts, casting aspersions that his 4-year-old son is gay, that HE is gay (Roberts) because he didn't marry until he was 40.  The far left has dragged the Democratic party into the pits of hell.  And some of that is very evident on this board."


SHOW ME ONE POST ON THIS BOARD WHERE ANYONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS 4-YEAR-OLD BEING GAY OR THAT HE WAS GAY (FIRST I EVER HEARD OF ANY OF THIS).


WHERE ON THIS BOARD IS IT SO *EVIDENT* TO YOU??


I don't believe that any poster on this or the other board

wished any poster to die and burn in hell.  I remember someone so frustrated with Bush that she once said that Bush will burn in hell.  She was frustrated, just like Pat Robertson, who your gang chalks up to freedom of speech.


The comment wasn't aimed at one of you, but yet you have to twist it and turn it into a total LIE before it's fit for you to write. 


I, for one, wish you WOULD go back to your board where hatefulness and lies are a way of life.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I've caught you in enough lies that i will NEVER believe anything you say.


P.S.  I thought you said you were going to Iraq.  YEAH... RIGHT... Add THAT to your never-ending list of lies, as well.  You don't have the guts to do it any more than you have the guts to tell the truth about anything.


You're putrid.  Just go away.


Give it up, sm, I did. Come on over to the C board. :) NM

Sorry, wrong board. NM
.
What about your trolling our board? SM
And if you say it didn't happen, you would be lying.  It happened over and over again.  And until you threatened to kill someone, we never went to the administrator. Why are you prolonging going.  GO!  You have numerous posts on here.  I'm going, almost gone, really I really am going, out the door, I'm leaving now.  Go already. I never promised not to come here.  I left, but I didn't promise. Frankly, your inability to either ignore conservative posters or, at the very least, debate them without malice has me stymied.  So go. 
Don't look, better yet, stay on your own board.
x
stay on your board
They just cant stay on their own board cause it has no information other than liberal bashing and then they are patting each other on the back, LOL.  They should change the name of their board to **I drank Bush's Kool Aid** board.
Stay on your board please.
I put this site up for the liberals, yet you people just cannot stay off this board.  Hannity has a board where everyone will agree with you, why not go there?
get off the liberal board
Why must you conservatives continue to post here?  We dont want you or your ideology posted here..Bush is to fault, for gosh sakes, he even admitted it..in his pea brain he kind of realizes he was wrong in his response..
So much for who can't stay away from our board.

Today on the conservative board, there were 10 new posts, and not ONE LIBERAL posted any of them.


Today on the liberal board, there were 20 new conservative posts.


20 to 0.


Obviously they find their own board boring since they posted twice as many posts here as they did on their own board.  But then we already knew that, didn't we?


I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board.
You can con each other on the CON board.  How's that?
It was on the old board, it was a conversation you had with Nan. SM

and it was about Affirmative Action. I remember it well because it was very long and civil exchange between the two of you back when I thought you could be reasoned with.  Nan said something about you have a different perspective and something like she could not challenge you from an African American point of view, I don't remember all the details, because you were African American at which point you said something like, what makes you think I am African American and she said, she thought you had said you were and you said I didn't say that because I am not.  Now this is not word for word but it is the gist of it.  Remember now?


Mad? Wrong board for that
Mad?  Not mad about anything in life.  Not happy about Bushs America and what he has done to America but not mad.  Working to change America, get it back on the right track..you bet..working to show the neocons they once again are wrong in their ideology, you bet.
That's anyone who posts on this board...sm
but, I'm sure I have called a spade a spade a time or two in my lifetime though, but I haven't called anyone on this board a racist.

But I still think the remarks that Bennett made were WRONG and if they weren't racist remarks I don't know what is. Sorry you can't see this. If he's not a racist why is he spewing the racist idealoges from the Freakonomics book anyhow, which by the way if these are the type remarks I can expect in the book I would rather burn my money.