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

I agree that a phased withdrawal would be a good thing...

Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-11
In Reply to: I understand everything you said - DW

after we have given the surge every opportunity to work and have given the Iraqis every opportunity to step up and take over security of their own country. We cannot afford to leave too quickly and allow AL Qaeda to take it over and use it as a base from which to attack us and I have no doubt they would do just that. As to Iran...I cannot see us invading Iran like we invaded Iraq, for a multitude of reasons. I believe the term surgical strikes would take on a whole new meaning if that became necessary. Honestly, I think if Ahmadinejad persists in this nuclear thing we will not have to do anything, because I believe Israel will handle it. I don't think Israel will stand by and let him get nukes. It would be suicide to do so...because if he attacked, that would be his first target, I would be willing to bet the farm. What I am really afraid of is he will put weapons grade nuc material in the hands of Al Qaeda for a dirty bomb to attack us with. That is why I don't want to abandon Iraq to become a base for such things. However, if the Iraqi govt does not step up...I would agree that we cannot stay there for life everlasting at the strength we are now. As you say, that does impair our safety at home. I think we need to concentrate on controlling our borders better.

On that note, I did see a somewhat encouraging report on illegals. Seems that more and more of them are moving on up to Canada because...get this...it is easier to get on programs if you are illegal and Canada pays more...LOL. Well more power to them I guess. Let Canada deal with them. I bet if we started a sweep to round up illegal aliens they would run north in droves. Which is okay too. Not great for Canada but better for us.

Be well, DW!


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

as part of a phased withdrawal, discussed with and
There is a specified end sight as posted on O's website for those who are interested in fact over fiction. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal

Excuse me. Clearly, the women, children, babies and elders in that video posed no immediate threat to US troops there. No need for pudit expert analysis on that one.
Obama actually does differ on McCain in his Afghanistan plan, especially when it comes to more precise targeting (like OBL, to name one instance) and measures that would protect and spare civilian populations from blanket bombing of entire villages to "flush out" a half dozen "known" Taliban.
Diplomacy has not been tried with Taliban or any other theocratic leadership in view of the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" W dogma...that is, of course, until recently when he decided to flip to the O side of diplomatic policy and explore the idea of establishing an American "Interests" Section in Tehran.

You cannot possibly pretend to know what sort of progress can be made under leadership guided by a president who has the kind of insight O has into Islamic cultures until those initiatives are explored. What is apparent from that video is that ANY and ALL efforts should be undertaken to succeed in disarming terrorist arsenals AND appeal and that measures should be undertaken to prevent the slaughter of women, children, babies and old men.

O has very clearly articulated his approach and policies on diplomacy on his website, which have been available since the day he launched his campaign. Show me the McCain plan for diplomacy. Don't just claim he "knows what he is doing" because he knows his way around a battlefield. Show me the plan. I will not address the rest of the post because it reflects all that tired out politics of fear warmongering rhetoric that 80% of the nation has clearly indicated it no longer buys into.
I agree this would be a good thing if it passes....

but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:


REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)


 


[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use. (John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)





  • Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Collected A $1.1 Million Windfall On A Las Vegas Land Sale Even Though He Hadn't Personally Owned The Property For Three Years ... (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years, The Associated Press, 10/11/06)




  • Harry Reid, The Senate's Top Democrat, Makes Frequent Trips To His Home State Of Nevada. Over The Past Four Years, His Bills At Caesars Palace, Mandalay Bay And Other Las Vegas Establishments Have Totaled More Than $125,000 ... (Brody Mullins, Lawmakers Tap PAC Money To Pay Wide Array Of Bills, The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/06)

That would also be a good place to start.


this is phased out at $47,000-50,000 income nm
x
United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal ...sm

Sweet Victory: United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal


It's one thing when former high-ranking members of your own Administration come out against your war. It's another thing when two-thirds of the country calls the invasion and occupation a mistake. It's really something when your own church issues a statement urging you to pull out the troops now.


Last week, the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society--the social action committee of the church that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney belong to--resoundingly passed a resolution calling for withdrawal with only two 'no' votes and one abstention.


As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq, the statement read. Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and should never have fought.... We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home.


The board also issued a strong statement against torture, urging Congress to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate detention and interrogation practices at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.


It is my hope and prayer that our statement against the war in Iraq will be heard loud and clear by our fellow United Methodists, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the UMC's Board of Church and Society. Conservative and liberal board members worked together to craft a strong statement calling for the troops to come home and for those responsible for leading us into this disastrous war to be held accountable.


With its bold stands against the Administration, the UMC is fulfilling the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who called for the church to be not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion but a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.


Bush has asserted that he entered Iraq on a direct order from God. Now, he has a direct order from his own church to leave. Is he listening?


About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal
For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)

After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers--most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.

Interviews with two dozen signers of the Appeal reveal a mix of motives for opposing the war: ideological, practical, strategic and moral. But all those interviewed agree that it is time to start withdrawing the troops. Coming from an all-volunteer military, the Appeal was called unprecedented by Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.


I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
1 good thing he did for himself was get a
/
I think it is a good thing that they met.
Here is a quote from the above link:

After the meeting, the two issued a joint statement saying: "At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time."

"It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family," it said. "We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy and protecting our nation's security."

Sounds good to me.
It might be a good thing...........sm
It might make a lot of smokers quit because of the cost of a pack of cigarettes. However, I don't think smokers alone should be expected to fund the lion's share of this health care bill since they are not the ones who would receive benefits from it. I tend to agree with the other person...why not tax the hound out of junk food and sodas?
Good thing..........
her family has lots of money - as she will probably be able to do all those things plus raise her baby. Something most families don't have right now - money.
Good thing...
...I don't mind tilting at windmills!
That's a good thing, because this ain't
no fairy tale!
kyoto is a good thing
Posted like a true republican who only cares about profit and corporations and not the environment and leaving the world a better place to our children and childrens children.  Its okay, with the emissions, gases, companies being allowed to pollute once again, why we can all just wear oxygen masks..and get a good SPF sun blocker..heck, like Bush said when asked about what he thought his legacy would be..he said he didnt know or care, as he would be dead anyway..Yup, that is real deep thinking and quite frightening..but he does not have anything to worry about.  When he leaves office (cant happen fast enough), he will go back to his *ranch* or Kennebunkport or wherever he wants to spend his millions.  He wont be in a world of hurt but the rest of us will, by his actions and inactions over a very very long eight years..No, I know much about global warming and Kyoto.  I have followed the situation since Clinton's administration.  I wont make absolute statements as I am not a scientist but from what I see and read, global warming is having a major effect on the world. .
Exactly! BIG Govt is not a good thing!
nm
how can "mandatory" be a good thing??
what happened to freedom of choice? I am not willing to give up my freedoms nor see those freedoms stripped from my children or grandchildren. why do you think this seems to be a good thing?
Enraged is a good thing when it comes to being
xx
ignoring the neocons is..a good thing!

It works, Lilly.  Its a breath of fresh air to ignore the neocons that frequent the liberal board just to vent their anger, LOL.  After ignoring them a few times, you dont even realize they are here anymore.  Now when I read posts, I totally zone in on liberal posts.


Condi Rice, OMG.  I cant stand that woman!


 


 


HAHAHA! Good thing that YOU are not running
nm
The only good thing about Obama being elected
would be that in four years, we can vote him back out. I'm with you, sm, less government, less government spending.
I appreciate the link. Always a good thing to be given chance
when it comes to watching a smear campaign implode all over itself.
Good thing kids don't get to vote
When I was little I think I would have liked to have Mary Poppins or Batman as president. If children like hero stories then they would be voting for McCain. He is a true American Hero.


Good thing we live in a Republic
and not a democracy

wow when it's moved everything is erased!! maybe that's a good thing? Lol
but I still think this is the right place :)
It's a good thing you have pride in the last administration....
otherwise, you would be lost. Your petty argument is lost on the majority.
Good thing Obama talked to them
all nice and friendly like.  So much for kissing their back sides Mr. President.  Maybe he should send them an iPod.
I think it's high time and a good thing

that RINOs finally declare their true party and leave room in the Republican party for true Republicans.  And Specter has, in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty (or senility,) illustrated the fact that every politician considers his first duty to be getting re-elected.  I hope that Specter gets soundly unpantsed in the next primary - as a Democrat.  That would truly put the icing on the cake. 


And about Specter, isn't it about time for this guy to retire?  He is a great example of the 'senator for life' syndrome. 


The Republican party put forth a very poor presidential candidate in 2008.  Maybe they learned from that experience and will return to more a conservative party line.  So if a few RINOs jump ship here and there, I think that's excellent.


It's a good thing Obama promised

not to sign any bills with pork in it....oh wait.....he lied about that and signed it anyway, didn't he? 


I think it a good thing to stay away and not give them a target. sm
It is so obvious they are brainwashed and cannot respond to logic in a sensible fashion, so it is no use discussing or arguing with them. You cannot argue logically with someone who has no logic.
Name me one good thing Bill Clinton did as President

I voted for Clinton when he first ran agains Bush Sr.  After six months of him as president and what I saw happening to the country I re-registered as republican.  Every time that man or his wife had their face on the TV I muted it.  I cannot tell you why, but hearing his voice or seeing his face literally made me nausous.  (I should have invested in Pepto Bismol stock and would have made a fortune because of all the Pepto I went through).  I still believe for 8 years we had no president.  Just someone sitting in the office, but we didn't have a real leader. 


Now I keep hearing how everyone praises Bill Clinton and what a great president he was (even though he was impeached).  So I would like to hear from people and name one thing that was good that he did so I could possibly have a different opinion of him.  The really odd thing is everytime his face is in the news I get that sick nauseous feeling again and still have to mute him and look away. 


The hair just stands up on my neck and I really feel like I am looking at what evil is (and I'm not religious, but he just gives me a creepy feeling), so please tell me something good about him.


Good for Fox - I'm no Fox fan but I'll give them credit for doing the right thing
They say Fair and Balanced but they definitely are more conservative and Sean Hannity really gets on my nerves something awful. He's about as condescening as Rush and treats guests who are liberals as though they are less intelligent than he is.

When I am in favor of conservative viewpoint I will watch them, and when I am in favor of liberal viewpoints I will go to another channel. Never CNN because they praise the Clintons too much. Most of the time I watch MSNBC even though they are more liberal, but at least they are fair and civil to conservatives.

So I give Fox some credit.
Yeah...good thing she isn't debating Obama...
nm
Good grief...that is ridiculous. I would say the same thing if he was white...
Geez...paranoid much?? LOL.

He IS a millionaire. Why should he spend campaign money to go visit his grandmother when he could afford to take himself?

The POINT was dissing Palin because the campaign bought her some clothes to be used on the campaign, not for personal use, and to be donated afterward. He will spend that much on burned jet fuel. I would say the same thing if SHE was black and HE was white.

Chill.
good thing u dont have to work with the public
with that attitude.  Emily meant why is the OP posting this?  In reference to what?  I am wondering the same thing. 
Good thing we have PSYCHIC wisdom on the board
:-(
I would agree except for one thing. sm
They are teaching our future generation.  Whether I give them power or not, and I don't, they have unlimited reign to spread their propaganda. 
That is not the same thing. While I do not agree....
with many of the arcane tax laws we have, redistribution of wealth is taking money from the private sector and directly redistributing that money to people who did not earn it. Not from the tax coffers that every american pays into. To put it more simply...say the government decides to take half of what you have and distribute it to your neighbors who don't have as much as you have. That is what Obama is talking about. Plays on class warfare...taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. When we pay taxes into tax coffers it is up to the government (sad to say) how that money is spent. We have control over that. Now what Obama has said he is going to do is bypass the tax and rebate system, choose which private sector company he wants to "tax," and redistribute that money directly back to people who did nothing to earn it.
I agree with you on one thing....for sure....
there are problems in BOTH parties. They have, for the most part, lost touch with us out here in Middle America. I am talking about the upper tier policymakers in the parties, the ones who REALLY run them, not the rank and file members. The Democrats dissed part of their rank and file members this week and I think they will live to regret that. The Repub hierarcy did the same thing, pushing McCain over the others when they should basically stay out of it and let the people decide. Now, if McCain is smart, he will choose a VP who is not a rote party yes person. I will wait for that.

But, BOTH parties need to clean house, and it needs to be back to what the majority of the people want, not what the upper tier of the political parties want. On EITHER side.
I agree with one thing you said. sm
You said:
We need to drop our RELIGION and DENOMINATIONS

I couldn't agree more. We need to drop religion and start thinking like rational human beings before it's too late. Stop believing in fairy tales like the bible. Revelations? Good grief. Try thinking of things in terms of facts, evidence, science, and reason instead of looking in an ancient book of fiction (the bible) and expecting it to predict the future for you.
and I will agree with you on one thing too
Actually my dad lost his job back in the 1970s but it was very difficult for him. he wanted to work longer, but the company was gone and he had no place to turn. So basically he was "retired" about 7 or 8 years before he planned. Fortunately, for him and for us, my parents had always saved well, did not spend money they didn't have and lived within their means so they were able to live fine anyway. What I will agree on is that they stood together on things the way people no longer do. When their company was asking cutbacks (which was got the union going on their strike idea in the first place) several of the younger guys were in jeopardy of losing their jobs. My dad and his three friends had worked there for 40 years, those being the jobs they took when they returned from their service in World War II. People used to stay at jobs and be happy to have them! Anyway, these four men each took a week off every month (voluntarily and without pay) in order to allow one of the younger guys to keep working and not be let go. Now that is admirable. That is how people used to treat one another. Now it's all about ME and no one else matters. That is one of the biggest problems I see today - selfishness. The whole strike issue is too ambiguous. It accomplishes nothing. The workers go on strike. if they succeed, the company gives them what they want (more money, better benefits - again, more money). Then the costs of the goods produced or service rendered goes up so the company can pay these higher salaries and increased benefit costs, and everybody pays more for the goods and services so in the end nobody came out ahead. You may have ended up with a bigger paycheck but had to pay more for the same stuff so what good did it do in the end? It was a union power play, and it hurt many,many people. Sorry, rambled on there. The outsourcing issue is a problem due to business taxation in this country, and we have one candidate who wants to increase business tax. How will that help? NOT.
At least we agree on one thing...LOL....
However....you totally miss the Joe the Plumber point. What difference does it make if he WAS a plant? I do not believe he was, but even if he WAS...this is America for the love of Pete!! Can't an American, Republican or not, ask a candidate a simple question??? No one forced Obama with a gun to his head to give a socialist answer. He did that all by his little ol' self. That goes to show that he BELIEVES that. That is what he BELIEVES. He believes in redistribution of wealth. He is a socialist. Hello. lol. :-)
I do agree with one thing you said about him...
he is intelligent. The rest of it...remains to be seen. I do not see integrity in someone who throws a 20-year relationship under the bus when it becomes a roadblock to the Presidency. Whether he has ALL the peoples' best interests at heart remains to be seen, not an established fact. As to the best and brightest in his campaign...I could not disagree more. Two of his advisors (until he also threw them under the bus) were main orchestrators of the Freddie/Fannie mess. Bring our nation to honor? That certainlyyyy remains to be seen.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?

The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.

Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.

He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?

The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.

Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.

He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?

The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.

Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.

He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
Yeah, it was, sorry.....I just don't think poking fun at sick people is a good thing to do....
and that was the thread. I think we are ALL better than that, much better things to talk about than that. So, I apologize...I will keep my indignation on the part of those who are the butt of jokes because of physical deformities to myself. I am better than stinging rebuttals myself..I will take my own advice.

Have a good day, vv, my friend.
Yes, giving the NAVY SEALS the order is a good thing
Although they really didn't need his okay, but I'll give you that. It was a good decision, but cripes, professing that he is a hero???? The NAVY SEALS are the hero's. The NAVY SEALS are the ones who rescued him. The O did not accompany them and help rescue this guy. You HATE the fact that we are bringing up a valid point...the O did not board the ship and help bring the Captain home. He gave an order. There is nothing to eat crow about. And because he gave an order that it was okay for them to go in certainly doesn't mean he's "doing good for the country". This is one incident. Good for the country????? Let's see bail outs, trillion dollar deficitis, more bail outs, pork filled spending bills, more bail out, lining up a cabinet filled with crooks and people who don't pay taxes, raising taxes on middle income, enforcing the patriot act worse than the previous administration, telling other countries Americans are selfish and other things, bowing to an enemy leader, etc etc etc. This is not "doing good for the country" and the Obama worshipers/lovers won't admit this. Your lord is not doing good for the country.

We're you proud of Bush when he gave the orders to rescue the hostages in Iran, or Jessica Lynch from WV, or any of the other orders to rescue hostages? No, you did not profess to be proud of him.

So that's the way it goes here with the Obama lovers.

Obama issues an order to save a captain - You and others reply - "Thank you Obama, I'm so proud of you, you're just the bestest ever President in the whole wide world".

Bush issues an order to save hostages in Iran, Jessica Lynch and other hostages in different areas - you and others reply - "So what, he's just a moron".

Tell me where the sense is that? It's called none!
I totally agree, and another thing. sm
Despite what liberals may think, Conservatives did not go to the poll and vote for liberals to express their displeaure.  They just didn't vote at all.  As you said, it was apathy.  I voted because it is something I would never consider NOT doing, but I was less than enthusiastic about some of my candidates. 
I agree. Another thing I would like to see change is.s/m
Corporations being given incentives and tax breaks to move their businesses to other countries. Workers in the United States need jobs too. I would like to see that repealed, and I hope that it is.
Hey that's the first thing you've said that I agree with
helping the situation. 
I agree with one thing....what she did was ridiculous...
inflammatory and downright stupid. She is supposed to be the leader of the house...and what she did was just plain stupid. According to the Republicans interviewed they voted no because that was what their constituents were wanting them to do in ratio of about 99 to 1. Still, when she was supposed to be a leader in a bipartisan effort, to make that silly speech right before the vote...seriously poor judgment and she is 3 heartbeats away from the Presidency.
I don't agree with the entire thing....
X