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 with the assessment in the last paragraph.sm

Posted By: LVMT on 2006-07-03
In Reply to: Did the NYT try to 'out Cheney and Rumsfelds vacation homes?' sm - Democrat

They will use kiddie porn and so-called domestic terrorism to limit our use of the Internet. Everything is greatly exaggerated to induce fear, and then you will allow them to slice up more of your liberties.


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 agree with the last paragraph, as well.

This is definitely a campaign against the First Amendment, and I believe Bush will do whatever he can to silence people who either disagree with him or who catch him in lies (a full-time job in and of itself).


And which fair assessment would that be?
What are you taking issue with here, the part where insults beget insults, that I'm sick and tired of non-stop snipes or what? Answer one question for me. What part of this thread has anything to do with politics at this point? In fact, what political issue did you have in mind when you made your so-called fair assessment?
Yet Another Govt Assessment
High confidence: Military experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes. Extremist leaders seek to recruit members with military experience in order to exploit their discipline, knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and access to weapons and intelligence.

Although individuals with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, they frequently occupy leadership roles within extremist groups and their involvement has the potential to reinvigorate an
extremist movement suffering from loss of leadership and in-fighting during the post-9/11 period.

http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/fbi-military-nazis-2008.pdf
As a former cop, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment.
If I had read this report as a cop, I would have concluded that someone at DHS had come unglued, and it would have been laughed out of the squad room. It is virtually useless in terms of offering any actionable intelligence and it labels people who have very legitimate, NONRADICAL, viewpoints as potential threats.

This should bother all of us.
I'm quite prepared to accept your assessment that
After all, who would know better?

The question is, how long are you going to drive around on that flat tire?



Why didn't you appeal the assessment to the county?
If the bank said it was only worth $8k but the County says it is worth $100K, it seems like there should have been an appeal filed with that large of a discrepancy.
The last paragraph of

this article is just tooooooo good. I would LOVE to see the Bush supporters actually really "go to Iraq," and for free!!!!



















Published on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 by UExpress.com

Sacrifice? Count Me Out
If You Supported the War, Pay For It

by Ted Rall
 


If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.


"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.


Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."


To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.


I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.


Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.


The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:


"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"


I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:


"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."


Did I call that one or what?


David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.


I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."


If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.




© 2005 Ted Rall

###


Might we see the whole paragraph?
context, you know, to make a valid decision?
The last paragraph.

Now I know Emanuel is chief of staff and why obama picked him, makes sense.


Bob Geiger - see 2nd paragraph

The last paragraph is why I posted it.
I am not at all convinced that the issue of abortion is a liberal or conservative stance. I think it tends to be tied to conservative because of its religious roots, but even that is debatable. Women throughout history regardless of religion have been having abortions. I believe it simply to be your own belief that really should not be attached to a political process.

As war is always a political process, the comparison isn't really fair is it? and I really, really hope that you are not referring to the war on Iraq because there is just too much refuting evidence to continue to believe we were justified in invading Iraq in the guise that we were defending ourselves.

How can you be pro-choice in the voice of war knowing that the very nature of it kills more people than abortion ever could? Just the war in Iraq alone has probably killed more people than the abortions in the United States in the past 100 years.

Makes no sense to me.
Ho hum, lost me after second paragraph
x
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
I like this paragraph in your post....
'For the most part I will find people who live in other countries and are observing what is going on here to be a lot more credible because they do not have an agenda.'

Right, and they are more objective as they are far away from it all.


you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
In one paragraph you have not only told me more than I ever wanted to know.

You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts.  The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make. 


Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Here's your answer, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
...Parade Magazine ASKED the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children.

He didn't take out an ad in the newspaper. He simply answered a simple question posed to him by a reporter on assignment. If you had taken the time to read more carefully and weren't in such a hurry to slam the man, you might have noticed that.

There was nothing superficial about his response. In fact, the only superficial thing around here is your post.
That would be great but one paragraph has me a bit leary.

"The announcement comes less than a month after the world's largest maker of microprocessors used in personal computers said it would close plants in Southeast Asia and scale back U.S. operations under a restructuring that affects as many as 6,000 employees."


What do they know? Are they afraid O is going to put extra taxes on businesses that do business overseas (which I hope), or are they being smart? Sorry if my sarcasm shows, but this will still affect 6,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Need to do some digging here.


The paragraph about early retirement

That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.


We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.


Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us.


Your last paragraph is absolutely correct.

The UN is definitely weak. It could be because of some of the countries that belong to it have the same ideas as Iran and NK.


I wonder when the UN is going to pay up on their lease for the NY building they occupy. Probably never because they think they are above reproach.


Once again you wasted a whole paragraph telling me how stupid I am SM
without a SINGLE FACT!   I give up with you. You are just too much (or too little). Whateva!
Your 2nd paragraph is complete and utter nonsense. sm
You wrote: 'Besides, a lot of atheists who try to disprove that God ever existed will usually come to the conclusion that there is too much evidence to prove that He does exist. It usually scares the you know what out of them and they become converts.'

And you know this how? I would say show me the evidence to back up this ridiculous claim, but I already know you have none. It's your opinion/religious propaganda, and it's blantantly false. You also have it backwards. You're implying people start out being athiest, then convert to religion. It's the other way around, when religious or secular people start questioning all the improbable/impossible things the bible is overflowing with, in addition to all of its inconsistenties and outright contradictions.

Forgive me if I doubt that you're an expert on athiests, and forgive me if I doubt your critical thinking skills, because religion frowns upon that - you're not supposed to question god or think for yourself, just obey his commands, or should I say, various human interpretations of his commands...

If there was indeed
'too much evidence to prove that He does exist' then everyone would believe in him. How could anyone deny it? They couldn't. But that's just it, there is no evidence to prove it, whereas there actually IS scientific evidence to the contrary, that you apparently are unaware of or haven't investigated.

Instead, you're willing to believe something based only on 'faith.' In every other area of your life where you'd want or even *demand* facts, proof, or concrete evidence before believing something so important, with religion (some) people are all too willing to blindly accept it on faith.

BTW, an athiest doesn't have to DISprove god (you can't prove a negative, anyway), you have to prove that he *does* exist, and you can't. And wouldn't you think if he really existed, he would prove it to the entire world's satisfaction anyway and put an end to the debate and all the relious wars, conflict, genocide, misery, suffering, etc? He'd rather we kill each over it? I think not. It makes no sense.

You also wrote: 'You can say all you want, but you just can't argue with a completely changed life'

Yes, I can argue it. You changed your life because *you* wanted to change it. You! Not some mystical, magical, invisible being in the sky who cares about your every thought and action. People change their lives for the better every day, without religion. IMO, if you hadn't found religion, you would've kept looking until you found something else that worked for you, and it probably would've been a lot healthier than the brainwashing, closed-minded, divisive phenomenon that is religion.

a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.

Cannot trust anyone it seems.
oops - one paragraph made NO sense of mine..sm

That's not to say that they are not entitled to feel what they feel and they are entitled to their opinions/voice..even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -


(above is the corrected paragraph - sorry *lol*)


This paragraph is in my post...I guess you forgot to read it...nm

Actualy, my cut-and-past job didn't miss the first paragraph
but appreciate your selective reading. Nice name, BTW.
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.

I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.

I hope he fails.



I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.


However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.




I sure don't agree with

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel.  I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts.  (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC.  I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox.  I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)


And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.


I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor.  (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)


But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder.  And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)


I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion.  One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.


But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member?  That sick stuff DOES happen in this country.  What if she knows she wants an abortion?  Should she be forced to have the baby?  I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know.  I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion.  That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.


As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman.  After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it.  I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they?  I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight.  Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay.  I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country.  As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay.  (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )


With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker."  That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.


I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."  


NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.


Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.


We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.


First, it's freedom of speech.  Next, it will be freedom of religion.  What about freedom of "thought." 


I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.


 


I AGREE
I agree with a few of your points..maybe this govt will push us liberals and conservatives together..how great that would be.  I agree with eminent domain, I dont know about the abortion issue for a young person, however, I feel empathy for them.  Regarding gay marriage.  I feel there is not enough love in this word and if two people find love and want to be married, let them.  I personally do not believe in marriage..dont want the govt or anyone else keeping tabs on my personal life.  I have lived with my male friend for 11 years and dont want anyone telling me what choices to make in my adult life.
agree
I agree with you..why, a lot of my friends are conservative (smile), they really are.  We agree on a lot and disagree on a bit but do it in a friendly manner.  My dream..that both ideologies can live together peacefully..
I agree!!!
These people on here are pretty nasty to conservatives.  They are definitely not living up to their standards of tolerance and peace.  They seem very angry even enraged.  I don't think we should rip each other apart.  It serves not useful purpose whatsoever. 
I agree with most of what you said.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it.  And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.


 


Agree with everything you said

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.


I so agree with you. Even one is way too
many.
I agree. I think they're ill.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.


I almost feel for some of these people.  A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor.  Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7.  I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them.  All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.


Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries.  They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods.  About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.


I agree.
The only way to do it is to DO IT, increase our troops, speed up training their troops, and GET OUT.  We've created such an unnecessary mess over there, I think it would be very immoral to just invade, turn their country upside and leave without fixing what we broke.
I agree with you

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.


Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.


I agree.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope.  I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.


I agree with you.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today.  The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."


I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made.  But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy.  Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.


I agree

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned.  I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT.  If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters.  Am I painting that picture correctly GT?


I agree with you.
What you said is so profoundly true and so profoundly sad.  I think over time Bush will be viewed as a pawn or a stooge.  Who or what do you think may be the controlling force behind Bush?  I have read articles on the "Vulcans" but have read little about this recently.
I agree.
It keeps promising to leave (yet another lie).  Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away.
I agree.....

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican. 


As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work.  The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help.  Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency. 


I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work.  If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that.  But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working.  Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.


agree!

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..


I agree with you.

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it.  I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq.  O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there.  I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest:  The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.


I agree with you both.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.


I also agree about Cheney.  He's very scary.  There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own.  And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*.  For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers.  If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example).  Nothing is out of bounds any more.


I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation. 


I agree with you as far as
the definition.  But to read some posts on these boards, you'd think it WAS communism.  It's a part of their mantra that you're worse than a traitor if you have anything GOOD to say about it, so it looks like McCarthyism is still alive in well in today's CONservative party!
I agree
I agree with you..I have always believed there was a **supreme being**  who was creating evolution. 
Agree 100%
with your post Freethinker..its a scary world out there, like the Twilight Zone or something.