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 meant fixated on her breasts not fixed

Posted By: dee on 2008-09-21
In Reply to: No more creepy than you to be fixed on her breasts - ewww back at ya. - dee

Thought I'd clarify that before people jump down my throat on that word.


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

No more creepy than you to be fixed on her breasts - ewww back at ya.
.
They really are fixated on that, gt!
I was just accused of being Dixie Dew a page or two ago too, LOL - she must have really rattled their cages. I guess since they are too cowardly to post their own views under their own names, they project that cowardice onto everyone else as well.


There you go again....you seem to be fixated
I hate to disappoint you but I don't watch FOX news. I don't care for Hannity or Colmes. They bore me with all that hot air. No, I'm afraid common sense has been lost on you. You seem to think you're the only one that has a right to say anything and when someone else doesn't think your way, you become so bitter.

You think everyone who opposes Obama MUST be a republican. That is why you're so narrow-minded. I'm not a republican, never have been. Unlike you, I don't grab onto a party just "because" and hang onto it no matter what.

Independent thinkers won't agree with you and when you realize there are people on this board who have done well for themselves, but did it through extremely hard work, that seems to bother you a lot. That's because you are in that deluded state of mind that Obama has put you in that tells you if someone has something more than you, they must not deserve it. They didn't do anything for it, so take it from them.

Well, honey, we both have worked our butts off and put ourselves through college and I don't need a self-righteous airhead telling me how to spend our money. We give generously and we know it actually goes to those folks that need it, unlike the government who takes your money and you don't know the heck it goes to.

Stop standing behind Christian as an excuse to post your hateful regurgitated garbage you hear coming out of Obama.

Think for yourself for Heaven sakes.
I never heard Hill commenting on SP breasts

Must have been on O'Reilly show.  Was there a large screen behind him showing various closeup videos of both Hillary's and SP's chests to illustrate the point?


 


No she didn't say breasts, she said she had the "mens parts"
And stood and laughed about it.
DH and I should get our mortgage fixed....
we have no debt but our home, have never missed a payment or been late, pay a few hundred dollars extra every month towards the principal, have never taken out a HELOC or used our equity (quite a bit) for anything and have a fantastic credit score. We should have our rate lowered below the 5% it is now for doing a great job. But no, we'll give a break to those who bought too much house, had to compete with the Jones' and who took out foolish loans to begin with.
If it is broken, why haven't they fixed it?

Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:


If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?




Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors
as high-priority terrorist threats.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?

sorry came out off center. Fixed version.
I decided to post this at the top since things get lost in the shuffle so quickly here.

Right now there are single, low income mothers (and fathers I would assume) who by the time they get the earned income credit and claim head of household do not owe taxes and actually get back more than they paid in to begin with. So why haven't you been carrying on about that all along? (And when people without children are contributing to this with their tax money, why isn't that considered socialism?)

I don't get all the chaos over this issue.

Fixed news strikes again...LOL (sm)

You guys really do need to bring in some credible sources.  The reality is that companies don't like unions, not because unions put them in a financial hole, but because they cut down on the profit margin (aka CEO wallets).  Again, the republican goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  This is a perfect example of that.  You guys gripe about the CEO payoffs from the 700B bailout, but support an idea (killing unions) that essentially does the same thing.


I work for MQ.  If we had had a union for MTs, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.


You can always watch Fixed Noise...(sm)
I hear O'Reilly plans on doing another temper tantrum tonight.  That should be good for a few laughs.
and what about people on fixed incomes who don't have mortgages
What if all this triggers inflation and screws them?
Explain what you want fixed? The voter fraud
xx
Anyone interested in being well informed watches Fixed Noise
How else can one keep up with what the myopic right-wing is up to, especially nobody else in the mainstream media with any ethical integrity will carry the bulk of their stories?
Anyone interested in being well informed watches Fixed Noise
How else can one keep up with what the myopic right-wing is up to, especially since nobody else in the mainstream media with any ethical integrity will carry the bulk of their stories?
Reality check for Fixed Noise viewers....(sm)

From Rupert Murdoch speaking about Fox dealing with economic downturn:


While it's impossible to be completely prepared for a downturn of this magnitude, we began priming ourselves for a weakening economy earlier last year. We implemented strict cost cutting measures across all our operations. We reduced head count in individual businesses where appropriate and we scaled back on capital expenditures.


Even on [finance] terms, we have never been a company that tolerates facts. 


http://seekingalpha.com/article/118935-news-corporation-f2q09-qtr-end-12-31-08-earnings-call-transcript?page=3


I'd be happy if they just reduced everybody's mortgage rate to a fixed 3%. sm
Then everyone is still responsible for the debt they took on, yet they're still getting a break. It would free up a couple hundred bucks a month for me, which I could then use elsewhere to stimulate the economy. Fewer foreclosures, banks are still getting their money.
You can't throw money at this problem and expect it to be fixed.
Spending and spending and then more spending isn't the answer - it just creates more of the same problems. It's true that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and that lost him a lot of support and, as you stated, created quite a bit of the mess we're in today. But Obama's spending really isn't doing anything to jumpstart the economy - okay, maybe in the short-term, but none of the money he's spending is sustainable.

Example: Part of his stimulus money went to pay for the salaries of police officers in Columbus, Ohio. For one year. The City of Columbus is broke and Mayor Coleman says that if things don't turn around soon, jobs that are going to be cut are... guess what? Policemen and firefighters. Even if those officers make it to next year, the city can't afford to take over paying thier salaries after that. Is Obama going to pay for it next year and the year after that?

When you're in debt, the first thing you learn is that you can't spend your way out of it. You have to cut back, "trim the fat", and learn to live on a tighter budget. What burns me is that none of the politicians in DC understand that because they don't have to live it - they do the majority of what they do on our dime.

It's not about doing nothing, but it's about doing what's right and since no one in DC even reads the spending packages they keep signing, you can't say even they know what's right anymore.
You can't throw money at this problem and expect it to be fixed.
Spending and spending and then more spending isn't the answer - it just creates more of the same problems. It's true that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and that lost him a lot of support and, as you stated, created quite a bit of the mess we're in today. But Obama's spending really isn't doing anything to jumpstart the economy - okay, maybe in the short-term, but none of the money he's spending is sustainable.

Example: Part of his stimulus money went to pay for the salaries of police officers in Columbus, Ohio. For one year. The City of Columbus is broke and Mayor Coleman says that if things don't turn around soon, jobs that are going to be cut are... guess what? Policemen and firefighters. Even if those officers make it to next year, the city can't afford to take over paying thier salaries after that. Is Obama going to pay for it next year and the year after that?

When you're in debt, the first thing you learn is that you can't spend your way out of it. You have to cut back, "trim the fat", and learn to live on a tighter budget. What burns me is that none of the politicians in DC understand that because they don't have to live it - they do the majority of what they do on our dime.

It's not about doing nothing, but it's about doing what's right and since no one in DC even reads the spending packages they keep signing, you can't say even they know what's right anymore.
What I meant was....
why can we not protect the unborn children first? Are they not as deserving as homeless, poor, etc.? That was my point. I do not see, nor do I ever expect to see, liberals exhorting us to take care of unborn children as a part of taking care of the least among us. I have seen Conservatives exhort to take care of the least among us, including unborn children. Conservatives just want to put a limit on it, and regulate it a little more closely (as far as welfare, etc.). I don't have a problem with that either. And I give privately to Christian organizations that DO take care of the least among us. It does not have to go through the government to be effective. I guess that is where we differ.
What I meant was...

He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing.  At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.


I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said.  I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush.  Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura.  I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.


I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary.  I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far.  I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America.  I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.


I meant
In the last paragraph I meant to write posting "false" information, not "fall".
Not quite sure if it is a pub or a dem who meant DNC....lol nm
nm
Sorry that was meant for OP nm
x
I think you meant that some
or maybe even many Obama supporters are educated. Just like McCain supporters.
Meant I wonder......
.
Her's what I meant
Not true meant that I'm not a rabid Republican (I'm a conservative).  That's why the RINOS need to get the heck out of the RNC.  They've ruined it.  Also, they're frauds.
yes, that is what I meant
I have no idea why I typed Otis Small?? Good night GP
Not what I meant.

What I meant was that I hope he has the opportunity to serve out the full four years and/or that this election isn't contested for some reason resulting in the involvement of the Supreme Court.  For example, I see the GOP is filing a lawsuit against Obama, alleging he used campaign funds when he visited his grandmother for the last time.


I hope we can all get along and not be as divided as we have been for the past few years, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause such division. 


Again, I thought the post you wrote was very classy.  Thanks. 


I meant...
As O's father is Muslim and O's mother Christian, they had to decide how they were going to raise O.
That what I meant.
I am roman catholic.
What? Oh, you must have MEANT to say
nm
I only meant where did it come from?
WHY the OP posted it

but aren't you classy

obviously he meant that he wants
to win over the moderates and fight the terrorists with his strategy.
I believe what you meant to say was
the hard working class of people that this entire country was founded on is going by the wayside, instead being replaced by an invasion of another country and their people to add to the already overwhelmed small population of people that work to pay for those who have spent generation after generation mooching off of the working class.

If not being lazy makes me self righteous, then so be it.

That is not what I meant.

Out of all the earmarks in the bill 60% were dems and 40% were pubs.  I didn't mean the whole bill was 100% earmarks. 


Meant what I put
knew such smart people here (I) could just get ......

still going at it, thanks for the snippy response.
I meant to say..
We already have laws in place that work to protect people from being harmed or killed.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew.  Do you know Noam Chomsky?  How about David Horowitz's parents?  How about the Rosenbergs?  Shall I go on.  Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!? 
I meant... NOW shoe...nm
But I know you'll stay because you need us to validate yourself. You're not at your best unless you are in your leftist/lib basher mode, eh. Keep it up, and people like you will expose the right brotherhood for what it's worth.
That isn't what he meant but there is no use debating you.

Maybe logical thought escapes you.


Wow, did I say Liar. I really meant sm
deluded liar.  Yes, that's much better.  
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.

Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.

I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
I meant I felt like it was an act....
I believe it was theatrics. The Hollywood reference was meant to say they would be proud of the acting job...nothing to do with all of Hollywood being amoral, though I believe a good portion of it is. But that could be said for other areas as well. I am also aware of staunch conservatives in Hollywood and I think God for them.
I never meant to infer that
W should NOT have gone to VT. If that is how you read it, then you misread or I mistyped. Of course he should have been there; it is just that there was SO much publicity about this tragedy and it does not appear (to me) that there is much of that for the American soldiers in Iraq; nothing on a national level.

I also never said that conservatives did not care about the war. What I meant was that in a country where only 50% of eligible voters turn out it is not unusual that so many Americans are disconnected from this war. I remember hearing people talk about WWII and seeing movies (not valid verification but nonetheless) and it seemed that the entire country was aligned behind **the cause.** I don't see that now. I bet you the family farm that I could go down to one of the city high schools or middle schools and ask a group of teenagers what they know about this war, what do they think we should or should not do and I feel certain I would get pretty much blank stares. That is what I mean about Americans not caring...maybe that is not the correct term. Most Americans are not engaged and don't feel a connection or much of an allegiance to **the cause.** No one sacrifices anything for this war but then that is one definition of secularism I have heard **Secularism is a life without sacrifice.

You see staying in Iraq as creating some kind of democracy where the people will live a better life. I don't. I see that the longer we stay, the more people die, both Americans and Iraqis. Altho I did not agree with this war, or any war for that matter, the possibility that Iraq could have been changed for the better did probably exist 4 years ago, but not now. I really believe our being there will make no difference, aside from more death, than us not being there. It is not cut and run to me. It is cut your losses and in my opinion that would be loss of life.

As far as Clinton and Somalia; I don't know much about the details of that situation. He was concerned about bin Laden; a lot of people were for a long time. I don't think this country would have supported a war in the middle east before 9/11 happened and that played a part as well. There is quite enough blame to go around for not foreseeing (sp) 9/11.


Knew what you meant
Isn't it awful when your own relatives treat you like dirt. My sister is mormon and she actually thinks I'm on the same level with manson, dahmer, hitler, etc because I'm not mormon (we both grew up going to methodist services with 12 years of sunday school). Inlaws treated us like garbage cos we didn't go to their church when we lived near them. I am a deeply spiritual person but I am not a Christian and I count myself blessed not to be in their crowd.
Nope, exactly how I meant it
Pretty self explanatory.
You Meant to Say McCain, Right?
Obviously you've confused the 2 candidates.  It's poor Senator McCain who can't think/talk at the same time.
Meant to add "sm"
xoxoxoxo
you likely meant should "not" pay for it. nm
xx
I think what she meant by the last comment - sm

was that now McCain has nothing to say about Obama's lack of experience because Palin doesn't have much either.  I didn't take it necessarily as a bash. 


How can someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?  A life is a life right?  Most of the pro-lifers I know, have listened to have made comments about God's the only one who can take a life, well if that is someone's stand how can you be pro-death penalty.  I'm not saying that that is her reasoning, God, but just a question.


I'm all for cleaning up gov't too, including your party, but isn't what she is under investigation for a bit of gov't corruption too with the whole ex-BIL incident.  I read that somewhere too about firing the guy because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex.


meant "depressing" LOL
nm
no, no, that's not what I meant - sorry, will try to explain myself
Ok, my bad....I did not "articulate" myself well with that statement. I don't believe Obama is linked with the Iranian president, all I was saying was either side could take an off the wall statement like that and say it. I guess I used a really bad example, but the statement that if one or the other is elected we are going to have another attack on our country or this or that. Nobody knows.

I do agree with you about the religion issue. I actually believe all religions are bad in that way, but I didn't really mean that if Obama is elected they will be "out to get us" (and I don't believe that), I just used a bad example. I just thought the original post was a huge faux pas. Hope that helped explain it a little.