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 didn't answer it because I wasn't here. sm

Posted By: Brunson on 2006-10-28
In Reply to: Law school 101. Not indicted does not mean not guilty. - Lurker

It's answered above.


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 wasn't saying it was the answer. SM
But by the same token, turning a blind eye to an enemy who is to this day, and probably until the end of time, intent of destroying us because of our religion is really not something we should ignore.
Thanks for 1, but 2 wasn't really an answer. (sm)
Please don't turn this into a Fox-bashing thing. People just need to get over that already. (FWIW, I've never heard that mentioned once on Fox, though I do hear it all the time from Fox-bashers.)


But to the point...

I've yet to see even a single person come up with a solid argument on why we should change the rules to include a certain type of civil union (same sex) and exclude another (polygamy) under the umbrella of "marriage."

Not that I'm for or against polygamy, but I'm honestly trying to understand where people want the line drawn.


If, as same-sex marriage proponents argue, what people do in their own homes, so long as it isn't hurting anyone, shouldn't be anybody's business... well ... how do you exclude polygamy? How do you justify "stripping one group of their civil rights" that way? Or are they only civil rights when it's from an "us" and not "them" POV?

Not trying to pick a fight, but every single time I've posed this question, instead of any rational discussion, I always get a knee-jerk response. People always flame into this "livestock" argument, or pedophile argument, or whatnot.

How can someone be FOR same-sex marriage, but AGAINST polygamy? Seems like an outrageous double standard.
I didn't say I wasn't going to read it, gt. sm
Try and get some rest, honey. Obviously you are just not thinking clearly right now.  Come back when you are thinking right.  Buh-bye
You still didn't answer

 The Billy Graham/Mother Teresa reference was made only to say what if one of them asked the question. If one of them did, a) we would not have character assassination for days on end so we could cut straight to the chase. What I am saying is that if a person pretty much all Americans admire were to ask the president, "why did _____ die in this war?" what would his answer be.


Are you going to Iraq to help nation-build?


 


Didn't think anybody answer that
because it's obvious that a parent can't sacrifice their own child to the military---that's why very few people take Cindy S. seriously.
Too bad for her she didn't just answer
the way most contestants try to:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... world peace.
You didn't answer MY question.

LOL. You still didn't answer the question. nm
nm
and still you didn't answer the question about...
if it was YOUR money they were taking. Furthermore, 10% for a millionaire is $100,000 (that's one hundred thousand dollars) per million. That same 10% for someone making, say, even 60K is only six thousand dollars. Anyway, no one pays 10% in taxes so let's make it more realistic. Let's make it say 25%. Now you've got 250,000 per million in taxes. Why should it be a higher percentage? It is an equal share. Where is the incentive to continue earning if you are doing it simply to pay more in taxes to benefit someone else and not for your own earning? Then what happens when that incentive is gone?

The moral thing to do is to treat people equally regardless of their socioeconomic situation. The right thing do is to let people decide for themselves what they can do to benefit others who may be less fortunate economically.

I will ask again: What if it were your money? what if they decided that any working person should pay to support those not working? How would you feel about that. Or are you just jealous because someone has more than you?
His teleprompter didn't give him an answer
/
I nearly didn't answer this out of the sheer lunacy of such a claim. sm
 I am not sure what is so complicated about the fact that in a world of good and evil, the forces of good must sometimes temporarily ally themselves with certain unlikable forces against the most terrible and dangerous evils of the time.  Of course, the problem is that people like you and most who post on this board have no real understanding of the enemy we face and will shudden in true horror when it's face is finally clear to you. Your complacency and willingness to blame all the world's woes on one single man, no matter who that man might be, is fatally short-sighted. In an effort to hate all things Bush, you have neglected the monster in the closet. 
nice dodge. You didn't answer the question.
nm
That's good that you are still deciding, but you didn't answer my question. nm
.

Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
McCain wasn't desperate and wasn't behind in the polls
In fact, they have been neck and and neck, and McCain has been gaining in the polls while Obama has been slipping. McCain could have taken the easy way and kept the stable course and picked safer, sure. Instead, he picked a maverick leader like himself, who isn't afraid to get in there and make changes even if it goes against their own party. I believe he wanted to say that the Republicans are the party for change, and wanted to make a bold statement. I've seen statements at "other sites" as well where people are absolutely joyous at this pick.
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......

'well, she made a mistake.'

But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't

his own personal reasons.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conversations With Bush The Candidate


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


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


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


Debating The Timeline For War


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


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



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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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



 


I know about this, it wasn't what I was asking for. SM
I was asking for a credible story that showed Laura Bush was drunk when the accident occurred, as gt stated above.  I am aware of this story. 
No, actually I wasn't. nm

That's wasn't me.
x
It wasn't a lie. sm

Saddam's son-in-law, who defected, said that the WMD were moved to Syria.  Several of Saddam's officers said the same.  This is an article I saved from some time ago.  Some interesting information. I do not doubt for a moment that there were WMD. He used them on his own people.  I am not sure how anyone can deny that he had them knowing that he killed thousands of Kurds with biological weapons.  


Iraqi WMD Mystery Solved
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 2, 2006



Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ryan Mauro, who spoke at the recent 2006 International Intelligence Summit on Iraq. He is the 19-year old author of  Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of WorldThreats.com. He was originally hired at age 16 as a geopolitical analyst for Tactical Defense Concepts. He is also a volunteer analyst and researcher for the Northeast Intelligence Network and the Reform Party of Syria and believed to be the youngest hired geopolitical analyst in the country.


Preview



Glazov: Mr. Mauro, nice to have you here again.


 


Mauro: Thank you. It's always great working with you.


 


Glazov: The recent Intelligence Summit released 12 hours of audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his key officials discussing their WMD programs from the mid-1990s onwards. What do you make of the significance of these tapes? How do they square with your claim in your book that Russia helped move Iraqi WMD into Syria?


 


Mauro: The tapes are extremely significant in that they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that as of the year 2000, Saddam Hussein had a secret plasma program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, or special bombs as he calls them. The Duelfer Report previously concluded that this type of enrichment program ended in the 1980s, but here we have Saddam and his top advisors discussing using a power plant in the area of Basra for the program.  The scientists involved in the program are not known to the UN, leaving Western intelligence clueless.


 


On the tapes, you hear Saddam discussing the assistance of Russia and Brazil in dealing with the United Nations. He laughs off inspections, as his son-in-law who later defects, Hussein Kamil, reports how as late as 1995 their chemical and biological programs were being hidden from the world. They also discuss keeping the ingredients for these weapons separate, so that should they be found, they will be looked at as innocent dual-use items. They were not destroyed in 1991 as the Duelfer Report concludes. There are even indications on the tapes that Iraq may have had a role in the 2001 anthrax attacks.


 


My book was the first to make the claim that Russia was involved in moving Iraq's WMDs to Syria. After all the nay saying and criticizing I received for it, testimony at the Summit confirmed that this was true.


 


Glazov: What exactly is the evidence that Iraq moved its WMD into Syria?


 


Mauro: It has been confirmed across the board that 18-wheelers were seen going into Syria before the war, crossing the border soon after Iraqi intelligence replaced the border guards and cleared nearby areas for their passage. There are also eyewitness reports of the trucks going into Syria, and eyewitness reports of their burial in Lebanon.


 


The trucks with the weapons were tracked to three locations in Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, currently controlled by the Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah. Sources I've spoken with that have seen satellite photos of the movements confirm that the WMD in Syria are at military bases, while the ones in Lebanon are buried. A fourth site in Syria, the al-Safir WMD and missile site, should also be looked at. From spring to summer 2002, there was a lot of construction here involving the expansion of underground complexes.


 


We have tremendous testimony as well, by General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of Saddam's Air Force that 56 flights took place on converted Iraqi Airways planes in the summer of 2002 to transport weapons, along with a ground shipment. He claims to know the pilots involved. A second Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, in an interview I published, confirmed in detail the movement of WMD into Syria saying that discussion on such a move went back to the 1980s. He claims his sources for this include Iraqi scientists and others in the regime that were very close to him even after he defected. He confirmed to me that Russian vehicles, including ones equipped to handle hazardous materials, were used. Reports of WMD being moved out of Iraq to Syria go back to 1997, and it is believed by many that weapons were moved in and out of Iraq using Syria routinely since the mid-1990s.


 


The Italian media also reported that their intelligence services had information indicating that in January and February of 2003, Iraqi CDs full of formulas and research work along with tubes of anthrax and botulinum toxin were sent off to Syria. By the end of February, Iraqi WMD expertise was already in Syria including a top nuclear physicist.


 


An Iraqi scientist also led Coalition forces to hidden stockpiles of precursor chemicals that could be used to make chemical and biological weapons. The scientist said some facilities and weapons were destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria. Syrian defectors are also claiming that Syria is where the weapons are, along with Representative Curt Weldon's source in his new book. The Prime Minister of Albania even stated that based on information he has which is not available to the media, he cannot rule out such a transfer.


 


There is also a report that an Iraqi medium-range al-Hussein missile on a truck moved into Syria, and in the early stages of the war, was spotted briefly coming into Iraq, operating its radar overnight, and returning to Syria. Most reports about the transfer indicate missiles were included in the transfers.


 


Glazov: Why do you think Russia was involved?


 


Mauro: In my book, “Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq,” I detail Russian involvement in Iraq’s WMD programs and intelligence services. Inspectors have described the Russians employed on UN inspection teams as being very paranoid, with some even suspecting the Russians helped the Iraqis thwart inspections. I believe that as more documents are translated we will find this to be true.


 


My immediate suspicions that the Russians were involved in cleansing operations began back in early 2003, after I learned about how two Soviet generals had arrived in Iraq and been awarded with medals. Igor Maltsev, known as a leading expert in air-defense, and Vladislav Achalov, an expert in rapid-reaction forces, were accompanied by Yevgeny Primakov, a long-time friend of Saddam Hussein from his days as the head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service and later, prime minister. This occurred as I simultaneously received the first reports of WMD going to Syria, leading me to speculate on such a connection. I became convinced when Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former chief of Communist Romania’s intelligence service, and highest ranking Communist intelligence officer to ever defect, wrote about a plan the Soviet Union had entitled “Sarindar,” or “Operation Emergency Exit.”


 


The plan was drawn up after the Soviet Union decided to use its rogue state allies, specifically Libya and Iraq, to sponsor terrorism. The Soviets would help them make WMD in return, believing that would prevent Western retaliation. The head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, told Pacepa that Russian advisors ran these countries intelligence services. Primakov was the central figure in dealing with Iraq, Pacepa said, and pointed to his presence in Iraq in the months before the war.


 


“Sarindar” was drawn up first for Libya, and then expanded to include Iraq, with the aim of stripping the rogue state of evidence of WMD activity and especially Russian involvement in illegal programs. The operation also “would frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with,” said Pacepa. The plan went so far as to involve an offensive propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting politicians making the accusations against Russia’s allies.


 


From that, I became convinced. Then later on, John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for defense for international technology, reported to the media that Russian Spetsnaz units moved Iraqi WMD into Syria and Lebanon. He said that U.S. intelligence knew the names of the units involved. The Washington Times had other Pentagon officials report that Russian Special Forces helped Iraq perform counter-intelligence operations to thwart the West from knowing what was going on.


 


We must also consider the huge Russian involvement in the Oil-For-Food Scandal. So Russia’s relationship with Iraq was beneficial for them on multiple levels, including financially.


 


Glazov: Do we have the details of the Russian involvement?


 


Mauro: At the Intelligence Summit, Shaw revealed even more detail I was unaware of. Shaw discussed how two Russian ships left the Umm Qasr port in the months before the war and went to the Indian Ocean, carrying materials that he believes included WMD from southern Iraq. He also said his contacts told him of barrels containing hazardous materials being moved to a hospital basement in Beirut, Lebanon.


 


Shaw discussed that Achalov and Maltsev had visited Baghdad at least twenty times in the previous six years. The final planning meeting before their last trip to Baghdad took place in Baku and was chaired by the Russian Minister of Emergency Situations.


 


Shaw said that much of the information came from a source close to the head of Ukraine’s intelligence service, who was thankful to the United States for securing the country’s independence from the Soviet Union.


 


Glazov:  What has been the intelligence community's reaction to the allegation of Russian involvement?


 


Mauro: Shaw said that often this information was dismissed as Israeli disinformation. Although I’m sure it happened to him on a much larger scale, I can confirm this happened. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve brought this up with experts in the field who dismissed it as Israeli garbage, or a fantasy of “Russophobes” and conspiracy theorists. “The Cold War is over” was said to me on several occasions, bringing the debate to a close. I can only hope that deep inside the community they know about all this and are acting upon it in a secretive way.


 


Glazov: So if all this evidence is credible, why wouldn't the Bush Administration take advantage of this information?


 


Mauro: There are multiple ideas out there. I tend to believe that the foreign policy implications of these revelations explain the Administration’s silence. The politicians don’t want to feel obliged to take strong action against Syria, and certainly don’t want to offend Russia. On several issues, Russian cooperation is a great asset if it can be achieved. There’s a debate as to whether Russia ever really helps us. Every country we seem to have problems with has close ties to Russia. It’s likely part of their strategic plan to counter American dominance. Yes, they’re pressuring Iran through negotiations, but Russia is closely tied to the Iranian regime, so one must ask in light of these revelations, is Russia simply “cooperating” as part of a game to buy time for her allies? Or does Russia genuinely want Iran to end its nuclear program?


 


Glazov:  Why do you think Duelfer missed all this?


 


Mauro:  In my speech, I said that Duelfer’s conclusion that Iraq disarmed in 1991 as based on:


 


A) The failure to find WMD stockpiles. This is easily explained by their movement to Syria. I should also mention that there are Pentagon reports and testimony of several people that point to numerous problems in how the ISG operated and was put together, thus hampering the search.


 


B) The lack of documentation on the programs after 1991. Yet, in the same report, Duelfer says that much of the widespread looting was a cover for Iraqi intelligence to destroy documentation and loot weapons sites. Even the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission told the Security Council in the summer of 2004 that satellite imagery showed the Iraqis dismantling suspected weapons sites before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Destroyed material and metal was then shipped throughout Europe and the Middle East at a rate of 1,000 tons of metal per month. Dismantled missiles and related components, they said, had already been discovered in several countries—some with UN inspection tags still on them.


 


It is also likely documents were moved outside of Iraq. The Russian ambassador to Baghdad, Vladimir Titorenko, got together a convoy carrying Russian staff from the embassy and headed to Syria, and suddenly got fired upon by American forces. Titorenko and his three closest intelligence officers flew directly to Moscow after escaping, and used the same flight to return immediately to Damascus.  There are widespread reports, even in the Russian press, that sensitive intelligence documents were in the convoy.


 


C) The lack of testimony from detainees. Duelfer relies upon the interviewing process—the same process he harshly criticizes as deeply flawed—to reach his conclusion. The detainees are afraid to talk out of fear for retribution, their testimony being used against them in war crimes trials, and simply because there’s no incentive. I could go into deeper detail as to some of the criticisms of the process. We also know many, many regime figures and scientists are in Syria and to a lesser degree, Iran.


 


It was easy for Iraq to move people around. Most of the regime figures were in Syria, including Saddam’s sons, until American pressure hit a breaking point and they were expelled in the later part of spring 2003. As the war commenced, 23 of Iraq’s 60 diplomatic posts were still operating, including in Amman, Moscow, Damascus, Beirut, Minsk and Tehran. It is possible that personnel are in Belarus as well. Many Iraqi regime figures that were captured [had] Syrian and Belarusian (and often, Libyan) passports. There were reports that people escaped from Syria to Belarus and Libya. Limousines usually used by the Baath Party were seen entering Syria, and then flew aboard a military transport to Libya.


Regarding Belarus, another very close ally of Russia, there was an incident on March 29, 2003. A chartered cargo flight took off from Saddam International Airport when the air space was closed and flew to Minsk. Originally, some suspected it [was] Saddam or his sons were aboard as only the highest officials could get clearance.


Glazov: Mr. Mauro thank you for joining us again.


 


Mauro: Thank you for having me.


 


It wasn't really a war. sm
It was ethnic cleansing.  And it should disturb Clinton.  Despite pleas, he didn't do anything.  Neither did the UN.  100 days is probably not that short a time when you and your family are being hacked to death.  I bet it felt like forever to them.  Hard to imagine that the greater part of the world has forgotten 800,000 people that quickly.  It's amazing the people I have talked to that never heard of what happened there. 
wasn't me
Well, that wasn't me asking you the miscarriage question. I have been out of town for a few days.

But, honestly, I don't know what G-d believes, and I don't think anyone else really knows either. We can guess, imagine, tell ourselves we know, but unless G-d is personally speaking to us, we don't really know what he/she believes.

As for your dramatic description, it is a tad overused and is not very effective (for me anyway). Seems like you must be a fan of horror movies or graphic novels; someone who really enjoys that kind of drama and the attention it can bring you, but it is a little too melodramatic for my taste.

The medical term for miscarriage is abortion. The medical community makes either calls them spontaneous AB or elective AB, but AB all the same.

Again, if you find abortions so distasteful, by all means, please don't have one.
okay I wasn't done yet...
The more I think about it the more it upsets me! He is claiming that it's better for our economy for jobs to be sent overseas, meanwhile we here in the US can go back to school to get better jobs. In this little not-so-great scenario, we will all go to school for great jobs like engineering. Then what will we do with tons of engineers? Or, we all go to school to be doctors and then we'll have all these doctors with no jobs. Seems kinda silly. It would make more sense to be diverse - with some people doing un-skilled jobs (which is a st*pid term because every job requires skill, even cleaning houses) and some going to school to be lawyers, doctors, etc.

Not to mention that not everyone wants to go to school and not everyone does well in school. You would think that keeping some un-skilled jobs in the US would help keep at least some people off of welfare and working. It just doesn't make sense to me.
He wasn't doing this just out of the
goodness of his heart, it was a job, just like MTing.
Wasn't the war about getting...
bin Laden? Ahem. Pubs COMPLETELY failed in that task, didn't they?
That wasn't me. I am the OP
"My post was replying to yours that you said most of the democrats got bored and left" That wasn't me.




Once again....you are the one that saw something that wasn't there.

if it wasn't so sad........
because if you had a 401K a couple of weeks ago, you don't have much of it anymore anyway. I have lost greater than 33% of mine in a matter of months - and I don't see much hope of getting it back, either. And I can't take it out because I would have to quit my job to get it. I will have to work at least 8 additional years to make up for that loss, which essentially means no retirement years for me, and I am betting many, many people will be in that same boat. And that Social Security I have been paying for 40+ years, well, doubt think we are going too far on that - if we see any of it at all. We have worked hard all of our lives, and it has been wiped out. Darn, I should have just spent it on a bigger house, newer car, and world travel. At least I would have memories to show for all those hours!
That wasn't McC with that ad

There are other so-called backers that have started to put ads on TV and radio that McC did not authorize.


There are others that the O did not authorize that are airing too. You have to look at the fine print as to who are putting out these ads. They jump out of the woodwork near the end of elections every 4 years.


but that wasn't me...
like I said, I am sure that I made a mistake, but I just couldn't find that particular one. I did find others, though. LOL. Whatever

there wasn't anything when....(sm)

Clinton was in office.  Even the liberal shows had a field day with him, but no republican response.


Another thing:  O'Reilly from Fox and Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert from Comedy Central all show up on each other's shows, which is usually hilarious.  I really don't like O'Reilly, but at least he has the ding-dings to go on there.  However, when the comedians go on news shows like Bill O'Reilly, they get grilled like they are actually a news station, and they are comedians.  ROFL...


Of course I wasn't
However, his grandmother, step-sister and step-brother were. His mom could not fly back to US due to her late stage of pregnancy, hence had him in Kenya and later registered the birth in Hawaii. I could care less about her age too, but the laws are the laws.

You really do not want to get into the issue with McCain. McCain was born in Panama on American soil AND both parents were American. BIG difference.
Maybe because it wasn't?
x
LOL! Yes, it was, wasn't it?? (nm)

I wasn't saying it was okay. What I was saying

was that everyone is in an uproar over what we did to the prisoners but it's okay for the rest of the world to do it to our soldiers and citizens, with not a single word said against it.


 As for this comment you made:"Communist, socialist, fascist?  No.....more like honest and a realist.  I love my country, but I am not so blinded by patriotism that I can't see our faults." I disagree. You are not blinded by patriotism. You are blinded by the wool being pulled over your eyes.


I love my country, too, but I don't take the 'spoken word' of any politician as truth. I absolutely don't trust a single one of them anymore and that's a shame.


How do you know? If it wasn't for MDs like this, I would not have sm
had a choice on whether or not I'd be forced to carry full-term.

MYOB until you are in the same situation. This subject burns me up. And I think rightly so - until you walk a mile in my shoes, butt out folks.
There wasn't only **one**. There is
That's the racist profile the republican party seems to want to embrace and the one being defended by many people on this board.
Would be funny if it wasn't..

Now that wasn't nice. SM
What am I SAYING! I am on the liberal board!!! I'll leave you along. After all, this board is just hopping with interesting things to talk about.
OK. But, I wasn't referring to this. That's all I'm trying to say. nm
x
Surrrreeeee it wasn't, gt. We know this because SM
only YOU can accuse people of being other people, like Brunson there.  Man, I would give a million bucks to see the IP addys on here!
Wasn't really trying to "advertise"
I wouldn't even say I had a political philosophy. I just call 'em as I see 'em. And Ted Kennedy a big blow-hard, but never seems to be able to put his money where his (big) mouth is. Another little piece of advertising. Besides, there is a difference between sarcastic and nasty, doncha think? I was not being nasty, just observing that he took in 100.
Again, that wasn't the point.
?
Again, it wasn't a comparison.
But I know how you like to jump to conclusions, so you can win this one in your mind. 
Her post wasn't about the war, HELLO!!! sm
It isn't even about politics, old one groove record brain!  It's about supporting the troops, which you pretend to do but you obviously DON'T.
She wasn't *caught* in anything.
Stop lying.  You lose all credibility when you do that.
Your name wasn't mentioned
I never saw the name gt mentioned in the post referred to.
How do you know it wasn't edited?

Wasn't referring to you....nm

fdfdf