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 don't think that puts his reputation on the line

Posted By: sbMT on 2008-10-13
In Reply to: Rev Arnold Conrad for McCain: God's reputation is at stake - on November 4th. sm

If Obama gets elected and he is truly as bad as we think, then we will know God has brought the judgment on us. Serves us right too.

God rarely answers when you try to bargain with him. Praying "prove to me by doing such and such" doesn't seem to bear much fruit from what I've seen. It should be "your will be done"

Flame away.... ;)


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

Rev Arnold Conrad for McCain: God's reputation is at stake

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9170659&nav=menu50_2


 


last line of Matthews piece cut off in error. 1 line sm
complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
Actually, I answered your posts line by line
about not "allowing" you to have an opinion. Those are your words, not mine. This is a good example of how this discussion has escalated from a simple link to this utter squashed bug nonsense. Why are you not able to simply debate the original issue at hand...the Eric Holder appointment? Too much of an intellectual challenge when somebody presents a THIRD-PARTY alternative viewpoint? You are the one who mentioned losing sleep and I remarked that it was probably unnecessary since you were blowing something out of proportion....something you have been doing all afternoon. You takes things WAY too personally.
It puts you
at the top of my list of level-headed Christians from whom the rest of the party/religion could learn a thing or two, & that is no lie.

I am quite reassured to know that there are some very religious people out there who still manage to separate church & state. I wish there were more of you, or at least, more who were willing to insist that this view be part & parcel of the Republican party. If there were, I'd still be a Republican, but I left the party long ago because of its exclusionary principles.




Still, nobody puts a gun to their heads

and makes them sign on the dotted line.  You can always change your phone number and address.


Personaly, I don't believe much of that crap you're posting is true.  I know recruiters can be persistent, but all this conspiracy theory is just that, conspiracy.


Bush puts name to everything...sm

















Americas
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/grey.gif




















src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif





The Times March 24, 2006






src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,281993,00.jpg
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif


Bush puts name to everything


src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif






President Bush has become the longest-sitting President since Thomas Jefferson — who occupied the White House between 1801 to 1809 — not to exercise his veto, surpassing James Monroe.










Monroe had been in office for 1,888 days before he vetoed his first Bill on May 4, 1822. Jefferson, America’s third president, never exercised his veto.

Yesterday was Mr Bush’s 1,889th day in office. Congress has sent him 1,091 Bills and he has signed them all. His refusal to wield the veto has angered fiscal conservatives. They have become dismayed by his failure to block legislation stuffed with “pork barrel” special interest projects, at a time of growing national debt and runaway spending.

Last month Mr Bush threatened to veto legislation aimed at blocking a sale of US port operations to a Dubai company. He was saved from a showdown after the company sold that part of its interests to a US entity.

Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 Bills, and Bill Clinton 36.


I will bet that he puts his pants on one
DH does! He really is JUST A MAN, his s**t stinks just like the homeless beggars hanging around DC. He really is JUST A MAN. This isn't even humorous any more, just beyond anything I have ever heard. He will never be "one of us", he has himself on too high a podium to drop to some peon's level.
That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)

according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/


Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.


That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)

according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.


[Exert] "Seventy-two percent of those questioned in the poll released Monday disagree with Cheney's view that some of Obama's actions have put the country at greater risk, with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/


Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.


This how he puts his campaign coffers to their best use,
oh brother
It is words. When he puts that into action....
I will begin to trust him. His actions will dictate what he meant by that...and if it was just words or sincerity. Since almost everything he is for I am against, I don't see how he could hear my voice, with all due respect. But time will tell. His actions will determine what he meant.
As long as SP puts herself out there and threatens to
she will draw volleys from the firing squad. Truth is that this relentless criticism is the best thing that can happen for the GOP, who needs to turn their eyes in a MUCH different direction when it comes to the leadership void. If they cannot move themselves more toward the center, they are doomed to fail again.
Voucher Program Puts D.C.

Cant trust anything Moore puts out there
nm
And I hope God puts some love and
//
Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/washington/11leak.html?hp&ex=1144728000&en=cfd85f2bec48b42b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

April 11, 2006

White House Memo

 

With One Filing, Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight



WASHINGTON, April 10 — From the early days of the C.I.A. leak investigation in 2003, the Bush White House has insisted there was no effort to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man who emerged as the most damaging critic of the administration's case that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons.


But now White House officials, and specifically President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been pitched back into the center of the nearly three-year controversy, this time because of a prosecutor's court filing in the case that asserts there was a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to undermine Mr. Wilson.


The new assertions by the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, have put administration officials on the spot in a way they have not been for months, as attention in the leak case seems to be shifting away from the White House to the pretrial procedural skirmishing in the perjury and obstruction charges against Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.


Mr. Fitzgerald's filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. It concludes, It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.'


With more filings expected from Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's work has the potential to keep the focus on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney at a time when the president is struggling with his lowest approval ratings since he took office.


Even on Monday, Mr. Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot during an appearance at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Mr. Wilson.


Mr. Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.


Mr. Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Mr. Fitzgerald's court filing revealed. The prosecutor described testimony from Mr. Libby, who said Mr. Bush had told Mr. Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some information from the intelligence estimate, which described Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.


But on Monday, Mr. Bush was not talking about that. You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that, Mr. Bush said. It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it.


Every prosecutor strives not just to prove a case, but also to tell a compelling story. It is now clear that Mr. Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House in the summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Mr. Wilson was seen as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Mr. Bush relied.


It turned out that much of the information about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and that it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.


The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct — Mr. Bush's or Mr. Fitzgerald's — may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems there will be more clues, including some about the conversations between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.


Mr. Fitzgerald said he was preparing to turn over to Mr. Libby 1,400 pages of handwritten notes — some presumably in Mr. Libby's own hand — that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.


One effort — the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate — was taking place in public, while another, Mr. Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby involved.


Last week's court filing has already led the White House to acknowledge, over the weekend, that Mr. Bush ordered the selective disclosure of parts of the intelligence estimate sometime in late June or early July. But administration officials insist that Mr. Bush played a somewhat passive role and did so without selecting Mr. Libby, or anyone else, to tell the story piecemeal to a small number of reporters.


But in one of those odd twists in the unpredictable world of news leaks, neither of the reporters Mr. Libby met, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post or Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, reported a word of it under their own bylines. In fact, other reporters working on the story were talking to senior officials who were warning that the uranium information in the intelligence estimate was dubious at best.


Mr. Fitzgerald did not identify who took part in the White House effort to argue otherwise, but the evidence he has cited so far shows that Mr. Cheney's office was the epicenter of concern about Mr. Wilson, the former ambassador sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to determine what deal, if any, Mr. Hussein had struck there.


Throughout the spring and early summer of 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald concluded, the former ambassador had become an irritant to the administration, raising doubts about the truthfulness of assertions — made publicly by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address in January of that year — that Iraq might have sought uranium in Africa to further its nuclear ambitions.


Mr. Wilson's criticisms culminated in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The Times in which he voiced the same doubts for the first time on the record. He cited as his evidence his 2002 trip to Niger, instigated, he said, because of questions raised by Mr. Cheney's office.


Mr. Wilson's article, Mr. Fitzgerald said in the filing, was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq.


Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the White House effort was a plan to undermine Mr. Wilson.


Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the vice president had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson's credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism, Mr. Fitzgerald's filing said.




I think Lieberman puts Country first. -has guts.nm
nm
At least McCain's wife puts her money into

I haven't seen anything on that. I see where she helps her own race. I haven't heard anything about her helping children with health problems like Mrs. McC.


If anyone has any proof that Mrs. O does help others, I'd seriously like to know about it.


W puts money in blind trust It's been 8 yrs since
but claims he lost money in the meltdown.  Guess economics was/is not his strong suit.  This makes me wonder if his economic advisors were ever able to dumb down their reports enough for W to be able to understand them.  Just 6 more days, praise the Lord. 
Thanks for the article, puts O in a good light really.
Told me how he is trying to rein in the lobbyists and get spending under better control and not things as usual in DC. I am Obama girl, thanks for posting!
Nice post Katie. It's the electorial vote that puts
the R or D candidate in the Big House, not "We The People" as stated in the Constitution.
Regarding your comment on "armed guards," it got me thinking.....maybe the men and women in the US military should be the deciding or only voters. After all, it is they who protect and defend us from harms way. I have nothing but the highest admiration for them for risking their lives each and every day...and who for? US-the people. That's a he11 of alot more than Congress or the entire presidential staff do, IMO.
Well...if it puts Obama in a good light, it is probably owned by George Soros. nm
nm
Don't you get it? SP 1st in line. JM=72.
nm
That is really out of line and
comparing Obama to Hitler? Talk about paranoid. There is nothing to suggest Obama is Marxist or Nazi. This is all hate and pot stirring rhetoric. Boy some people just operate on fear and are sour grapes that the majority of the people have spoken and Obama was chosen.

You really should come up with a better line.
No such thing as Bush juice. But I wouldn't expect less from someone on the kool-aid.
That's the only line you took from the speech...sm
But you think Bush who admits that he did drugs - obviously inhaled or sniffed, and was an alcoholic is a living testimony of credibility. Is there a double standard here?
Newsweek on-line

nm


Oh geez. The least you could do is get a new line...
you asked me that same question under a different moniker not long ago. At least get some new material. Geez! And as far as emailing you...not in this lifetime. I did that once...once burned, many time shy. You guys can get pretty hateful on this board, but a sailor could take lessons from you when you are uncensored...LOL Had enough of potty-mail all-tolerant liberals to last me a lifetime. And anybody knows you can have more than one email going to the same place. Geez. Get a new schtick. This one is oldddd.
The bottom line is....
from 1870 to the 1960's the majority of elected Democrats in Congress, with the help of a small minority of southern Republicans, effectively denied African Americans the right to vote for 90 years FOLLOWING the civil war. If you are saying that seeking their freedom and giving them the right to vote is a "liberal" movement, then it was the Republicans in majority, not the Democrats in majority, who were the "liberals" of that time.

In my mind, we are all tied up in semantics. The passion and commitment to something that to each of us is morally right is not liberal nor conservative. It is a human characteristic. None of us, I suppose, are truly liberal or truly conservative. It is a mixture. Some "liberals" agree with me that abortion is morally wrong and are against it for that reason, yet still consider themselves liberals. Some "conservatives" (such as Guiliani) do not agree on abortion and are pro choice, yet still call themselves conservative. I made a comment on the conservative board regarding the fires in California and was accused of sounding like a "bleeding heart liberal." So, in essence, over time people have identified certain characteristics and tried to put them in a liberal or a conservative box. And because we are human, and because we are different and have different ideas, we do not fit into boxes and ideas cross over. Hence, no true liberals or true conservatives....and that fact does not bother me at all, though it does bother some.

It is just that some of us love the labels more than others, I guess; the labels make them feel good, like they are affiliated with something noble...and what the labels mean to us individually, and some get very angry if someone questions the label.

I guess my prefrence is not to be labeled.

And that is what it is...a label, in the grand scheme of things. Because no one can really agree on what it means. Everyone puts their own personal spin on it. That is the nature of the human condition.
The last line of your post is....
So, the "God is telling me I need to fight for all unborn fetuses" is a religious issue and should be there. Tired of seeing line after line after line of religious opinions on the political board.

You also said this: If your trying to make an argument with the "I'm fighting for all the unborn fetus'" and God is telling you this, blah, blah, blah, that's all great but it should be on the "Faith" board.

I never said anything remotely like that. To suggest I did is not true. TO use your own words, I take offense to someone who makes judgments about me without knowing me. You can make judgments about me, but no way should I make any about you?

Generally when something is not true it is a lie. I did not directly call you a liar. However, I apologize for any inference if there was any. How's this? What you said is not true. I never said God told me to do anything. I never said religion was my motivator. You made assumptions about me and you don't know me.

It is not hard to read posts on abortion at all, in caps or not. Just don't click to open it.

You and the others have made your point ad nauseam about how tired you are of it. I am tired of being told what I can post and what I can't, just as tired as you are of seeing abortion threads. And none of the threads would be near as long as they are if "they" ( I won't include you since you say you are not one of them) didn't pile on and bash me. It would just beone lone post. And believe me, as tired as you are of seeing abortion posts I am tired of the endless bashing that goes with them.

Yes, I said if it chaps you so be it, and it obviously does. You are basically saying the same thing to me: stop the abortion posts or take them somewhere else, and if it chaps you, so be it. Okay for you, not okay for me.

And to use your words..enough has been said about it and it is getting old.

Get a new line. That prayer cop-out
nm
Look down the line...sure are a lot from YOU..with no point
other than to bash sam. Pot callin' the kettle wouldn't you say?
Disregard name line.
nm
The name line should read
continue with body of original post.
Bottom line
Obama is going to win, that's what counts.
He must do something right, if the majority wants Barrack Obama.
bottom line...
After the attack of 9/11 something HAD TO BE DONE.

What other options were there?

Doing nothing was sure not an option.






Why is it out of line to say things about
O, yet for years Bush has had some horrible things said about him, Palin was maligned, etc ( I know, I know, you're going to respond by saying the things about Bush and Palin are true..beat ya to it). We have this thing called Free Speech, a wonderful thing, the beauty of the United States. And please don't pull the "racist" card out either, it doesn't fly. This PC, touchy-feely, give peace a chance. can't we all just get along business is grating on the nerves.
That is really out line and distasteful
Very disrespectful to her as a person.  I am not going to read your posts anymore because you dont write what I like. 
I do not make as much as many per line
but I make a decent amount of money, especially to stay at home. I hear some people whining about how they cannot get more than 10 cpl and think that there might not be so much out sourcing if these folks might be willing to work for less. However, I might take a pay cut if I had to in order to keep my job. It would sure beat forcing my company under and having no pay at all.
Those one-line wonders are just too
are so direct and to the point. Most of us don't have time to write volumes here like some folks! Besides, the questions, or statements, are so simple-minded, it only takes one line to respond.
And then STAND IN LINE for your
You sound awful happy about old Barry. Another welfare millionare in the making, methinks.
That IS the bottom line...
That's the only reason it is being offshored. It has nothing to do with "free trade" and everything to do with corporate greed.
He can say whatever he wants about "line by line" but...sm
O can go through every budget bill, addendum, omnibus, whatever you want to call it line by line. However, until he gets the power of "line item veto, he can take out whatever he wants when he wants, he can veto all he wants until the cows come home. However,
the congress can, by a 2/3 majority, over ride his veto. And guess what??? Pork is still king and earmarks and lobbiests still reign supreme.

Line item veto power is goingto be harder to come by than a choice of a viable 3rd party. But that is JMO.
You obviously just read one line in
my post.  I said it cannot be done correctly if it is rushed.  They are trying to rush this because it is such a controversial thing.  We cannot afford it right now without taxing people more.  This is something that needs to be looked at very carefully with the kinks worked out before they go on passing it.  Things that are rushed often have a lot of flaws.
The bottom line is....(sm)

Torture does not provide reliable confessions.


Torture has not and will not "save American lives."  If it has done anything, it has put more lives at risk.


Waterboarding was used in WWII against US personell by the Japanese.  We prosecuted those who used torture and executed them.  Why?  Because it was against the law.  And what did the Japanese get for their efforts with torturing?  False information and a bad reputation.  What makes you think we'll get anything different from that?


The only thing torture is good for is revenge.  That's not what this country is about, and its not what I'm about.


Sp be it, but your line of reasoning is skewed

What if a sex offender was running loose in your neighborhood.  What if he had raped a child 10 years ago, went to jail with a slap on the wrist (like what happens these days), and got out in ten years.  He shows up in your neighborhood, and you see him out on his porch everyday when the school bus arrives and leaves.  Not only is he leering at the school kids he's making outrageous comments on a daily basis.  Would you say, *Oh, he went to prison.  He did his time.  Hopefully, he's rehabilited.  Yes, he's a little strange and outrageous, but so far, as far as we know, he's not touched a kid again so we need to leave him alone.*


Would you trust this guy?  Especially if you then found out he has a *rape room* in his house?  What if his sons were running around the neighborhood reeking havoc and doing the same things but in a more merciless way and you found out they were going to inherit his house when he died?


Well, this correlates very well with Saddam.  Almost too closely in fact.  Like many of you say here on a daily basis, the world is our neighborhood, and in many neighborhoods there are bullies, and they don't quit being bullies until you take them out.  It's just the way the world works.


If they had pulled him from a picket line that would be different...sm
He was arrested for wearing a Veterans for Peace T-shirt.
I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way.  To each his own.
Bottom line, Taiga....
did Murtha or did Murtha not say "The surge is working?" Yes, he did. Why did CBS choose not to print all the disclaimers? You got me, I don't know. As to Murtha adding the disclaimers, he probably suddenly remembered he is going to have to talk to Pelosi come Monday. I don't blame him, I would be backpedaling too. lol.
Okay. This is exhausting. Bottom line...
I did not say Teddy you are a liar. Nor will I. Only you know for sure if you are lying. And you have said ad nauseam you don't care what I think or say, so why do keep protesting so much? Sigh.

What I believe or do not believe does not matter at this point to anyone but me. I vote we stop whipping this dead horse.
Then I expect you to be the first in line for the draft.
Everyone has the right to protect themselves, their beliefs, religion, and country, but it seems that yours takes precedence over everybody elses and you can't seem to bring yourself to that level of understanding.

I don't have a stomach to being lied to and I especially don't stomach flippant remarks about my beliefs, as I have a right to protect them. Hatred is formulated. It has been formulating for years. Love turns to hate. Jealousy turns to hate. Intolerance turns to hate. Just give the right stir, formula 101.

2006 NIE report findings stated the the occupation of Iraq is creating more Islamic radicalism.

"An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official."

Who's wearing the blind fold? Two hates to do make peace or tolerance.