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 risk getting banned, but all I can think of

Posted By: .* on 2009-05-27
In Reply to: And - Anonymous1

reading your post is: STUPID and living in a sdmall village in the MIDWEST, right?
Hehehehehe!


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

Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at Risk

Am I the only one who isn't surprised by this?? 






Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at Risk





By HOPE YEN, Associated Press WriterSun Dec 4, 6:28 PM ET



The U.S. is at great risk for more terrorist attacks because Congress and the White House have failed to enact several strong security measures, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said Sunday.


It's not a priority for the government right now, said the former chairman, Thomas Kean, ahead of the group's release of a report Monday assessing how well its recommendations have been followed.


More than four years after 9/11 ... people are not paying attention, the former Republican governor of New Jersey said. God help us if we have another attack.


Added Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic vice chairman of the commission: We believe that another attack will occur. It's not a question of if. We are not as well-prepared as we should be.


The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission, whose recommendations are now promoted through a privately funded group known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, conclude that the government deserves more Fs than As in responding to their 41 suggested changes.


Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But the government has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting money so it goes to states based on risk level.


There is a lack of a sense of urgency, Hamilton said. There are so many competing priorities. We've got three wars going on: one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq and the war against terror. And it's awfully hard to keep people focused on something like this.


National security adviser Stephen Hadley said Sunday that President Bush is committed to putting in place most of the commission's recommendations.


Obviously, as we've said all along, we are safer, but not yet safe. There is more to do, Hadley said on Fox News Sunday.


Ex-commissioners contended the government has been remiss by failing to act more quickly.


Kean said the Transportation Security Administration was wrong to announce changes last week that will allow airline passengers to carry small scissors and some sharp tools. He also said the agency, by now, should have consolidated databases of passenger information into a single terror watch list to aid screening.


I don't think we have to go backward here, said Kean, who appeared with Hamilton on NBC's Meet the Press.


They're talking about using more money for random checks. Terrorists coming through the airport may still not be spotted, Kean said.


Kean and Hamilton urged Congress to pass spending bills that would allow police and fire to communicate across radio spectrums and to reallocate money so that Washington and New York, which have more people and symbolic landmarks, could receive more for terrorism defense.


Both bills have stalled in Congress, in part over the level of spending and turf fights over which states should get the most dollars.


This is a no-brainer, said Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman.


From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at (Hurricane) Katrina. They still cannot do it.


As for the dollar dispute, Hamilton said, We know what terrorists want to do: they want to kill as many Americans as possible. That means you protect the Washington monument and United States Capitol, and not other places.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its 567-page final report, which became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton for missteps contributing to the attacks but did say they failed to make anti-terrorism a higher priority.

The commission also concluded that the Sept. 11 attack would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaida had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Calling the country less safe than we were 18 months ago, former Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick said Sunday the government's failure to move forward on the recommendations makes the U.S. more vulnerable.

She cited the failure to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, as well as the FBI's resistance to overhauling its anti-terror programs.

You remember the sense of urgency that we all felt in the summer of 2004. The interest has faded, the Washington lawyer said on ABC's Good Morning America. You could see that in the aftermath of Katrina. We assumed that our government would be able to do what it needed to do and it didn't do it.

___

On the Net:

9/11 Public Discourse Project: http://www.9-11pdp.org/






No, They are willing to risk it to "save the economy"
nm
I think the risk to the hostage is too high...(sm)
to just storm them.  France just did that to another one that had French hostages, and one of the hostages was killed during the raid.  I really don't want these guys to get away, but if we're talking about the safety of the hostage, maybe the best thing right now is to pay the ransom and then go after them.  I don't think they WANT to kill the hostage because then they get no money.  Keep in mind, this is a source of income for them  -- that's why they do it.
At the risk of sounding cold
I agree that it is a terrible thing that there has been no social security increase for 2 years. However, I must point out that I have actually seen a decrease in my income in the last 2 years. While I don't believe that they should be punished in their golden years, point of fact is that most of them do have their houses paid off. Their families are grown and gone. They are eligible for Medicare.

I believe it is endemic of the economy as a whole...obviously, if there's nobody working, there's nobody paying into social security. However, things are just as bleak out here for those of who who constitute the younger working poor, with mortgage/rent payments, medical insurance (if we can even get it), families to feed and dress, etc.
At the risk of being called one of the religious fanatics....
and lumping everyone together in one pile is not fair may I say...you believe in choice. You are taking choice away from the child. If the child was able to speak I am relatively sure it would not choose to be exterminated like vermin. You want to give all the power to the woman over her body...perhaps she should take some responsibility for that body and not fall back on extermination as a method of birth control. If abortion was stopped for all but rape, incest, and endangering life of the mother hundreds of thousands of babies would be saved every year. What happened to responsibility? Why was that abandoned in the name of choice? If you can speak for the choice of the woman, why can't some of us speak for the right to life of the child? If she has it and drowns in 10 days later, she is tried for murder. What a difference 10 days makes, eh??

As far as jobs going overseas...when our government taxes businesses into oblivion (happens in every Dem admin) jobs go overseas. Because we have the next to highest business taxes in the entire world. That discourages businesses coming here also...and the jobs those businesses would create...as well as sending jobs from here offshore. Or they close completely, and jobs are lost. I have gone up steadily in earnings since the Clinton administration. I am doing much better now than I was then.

Socialism (redistribution of wealth) does not work either. It never has. Cuba, Venezuela...it never works. All that happens in socialism is eventually the middle class disappears, and all you have is the upper crust (govt and cronies) and the rest of the people. And in that case the money stays at the top...it never quite gets to the "people" where it was promised it would go. I imagine the Venezuelan people are still waiting for their oil checks since the government took it over. Socialism doesn't work. It is a myth to get people to give over the power to the power brokers...in our case, the DNC. Be careful what you ask for....
The child would be more at risk due to the enlarged ventricles and
pressure on the head. However, since you already know the child has hydrocephalus before she is born, you can make the choice as I did for C-section. I've done a lot of research on hydrocephalus the last 8+ years and I agree... this would not put the mother at high risk. And, hydrocephalus is not an immediate "vegetable" diagnosis by any means.
At the risk of hastening my descent into the brimstone
I almost think you're the one who is making religion almost too easy. It doesn't seem to matter what kind of a scumbag you are, as long as you believe Jesis died for your sins. Which explains a lot about some of what the "faithful" have said. You have no reason to lead an upstanding life...as long as you believe, you can break every commandment and still bask in your god's glory. Nice...maybe I've been going about this all wrong. Contrary to what you may think, I do believe in Jesus, the trinity, etc. But I somehow had the misguided notion that God judged us based on our character. Boy, have I been wasting a lot of time and patience.
Okay, well at the risk of starting a world war, that link does not work.
It says Page Not Found.  It appear Starcat was able to see it.  Evidently, it really IS a left-right problem.
JBB, I like your thinking, but at the risk of "beating a dead horse," .......
Buy new computers = putting money in the economy = jobs for people to build computers.

Those computers are built in Japan, China, Korea, and almost every place in the world BUT the USA.

Just like last year when we got our "stimulus check." The only economies jump started, if any, were the ones overseas when everybody bought their TV's, computers etc.

Banned..not me
Sweet honey, Im here..banned?  For what?  I dont break rules or laws and try to keep my posts respectful..**wish the conservatives would take the same hint**..I just state the FACTS in America right now..No, sweetie pie..to your dismay, I was not banned..I  was just cooling my heels in Mexico, Tijuana for a few days as Tijuana is only two hours from my home and I frequent the town quite a bit..and have friends down there..But......IM......BACK....**Kiss.Kiss..Kiss..*..
Maybe they were banned. nm
xxx
Carrying a hydrocephalic fetus doesn't put the mother at high risk. Please.. nm
x
No, what's hard is not getting banned from

People are not banned by their sig,
they are banned by their e-mail address.
If hate was banned, this would be
NM
For people who wanted me banned ....
you certainly want to continue to engage me.

There is media bias. They want Obama elected. They did it to Hillary too, just not to this degree.

How is this coming out swinging? How is this different from posting pro Obama items?

Are you really this intolerant?
Watch out, you'll get BANNED.......

I didn't say anything hurtful toward you and I don't want to be banned.
I'm didn't make any comments to you and did not get nasty in any of my posts (most are defending myself). I post some information and am brutally attacked for it. I am in agreement with a lot of black democrats and I wanted to share some things I have heard, just like you share things about McCain & Palin, however my post did not say any nasty comments about Obama. I'm not attacking you but you are attacking me. Yeah it does shock me and made my eyes water that someone could be that mean towards me (especially when they don't know my nationality). There are two nasty posts about something about being home schooled and the one above it (3 if you include the one who yelled at me that I'm a racist) but I'm just skipping over them and not reading them as I can tell by the message what the content must be (p.s. home schoolers are quite highly intelligent). So I will follow the moderators message and just skip all the nasty comments about me. This will be my last post I make.
"anybody would have" will hopefully be banned from the board soon
that is how the moderator comes
I ask that 'sm' is banned due to this message!..nm
nm
Nice! You are kidding about the 'being banned.?...nm
nm
Why did Michael Savage get banned?? I know the answer....
Because Michael Savage calls a spade a spade and a terrorist a terrorist. He has no use for the Muslim religion whether they are the rabid haters or the mealy-mouthed ones who say nothing. He denounces the so called "religion of peace" every chance he gets; and right so. He is allowed to have his opinions. You know exactly where he stands on a subject. THus, because Britain has caved in to the Muslims as far as sharia law, sharia financing, etc, they hate Michael Savage because he lets the Brits know what they have become and what will happen to them down the road. As a famous line in a movie went...."You can't handle the truth!!!!"
Oopphhs..an editorial against bush..am I gonna be banned?

Shockingly unprepared


The countless questions about the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf states are all variations on a simple theme: This disaster was all but scripted; why wasn't the response?

News reports from the region have shown the situation getting worse, not better.

This inability to regain control, or at least to rally against the disaster, has shocked the country's sense of itself. Predictably, recriminations mounted Thursday, even as federal officials delivered more aid. State and local officials in Louisiana were particularly critical of the response from Washington, complaining that the feds were slow to provide the help needed to feed and evacuate survivors and halt criminals.

Defenders of the Bush administration said it was doing everything it could. They're facing problems that nobody could foresee: breaking of the levees and the whole dome thing over in New Orleans coming apart, former President George H.W. Bush said Thursday on CNN. People couldn't foresee that.

In fact, emergency planners have been thinking about a catastrophic levee breach for years. Many saw it as an inevitable consequence of a high-powered hurricane such as Katrina hitting the city. And in early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that one of the three most likely disasters to strike the U.S. was a catastrophic flood triggered by a hurricane hitting New Orleans. (The other two: a terrorist attack on New York and a major earthquake in San Francisco.)

It's certainly true that by the time forecasters knew that Katrina was a threat, it was too late to shore up the levees. And by the time they knew Katrina was going to come ashore near New Orleans, there was not enough time to evacuate the city completely.

Still, much of what happened this week in New Orleans had been foreseen by federal and state emergency planners, as the city's newspaper, the Times-Picayune, laid out extensively three years ago. Survivors will end up trapped on roofs, in buildings or on high ground surrounded by water, with no means of escape and little food or fresh water, perhaps for several days, one story predicted with eerie accuracy.

That's why the complaints from Louisiana about the official response are so troubling. Why did it take so long to evacuate the poor, the elderly and the tourists unlucky enough to be caught with no way out of town? Where was the food and water? Why were the police left to choose between rescuing people from the floods and saving them from predators?

Critics of the administration, including former FEMA officials, say Washington's focus since late 2001 on potential terrorist targets has come at the expense of its ability to respond to natural disasters in other parts of the country. FEMA no longer helps prepare communities for disasters — it just responds to them. Other critics have pointed out that the administration diverted money from a levee project in New Orleans to fund priorities within the Department of Homeland Security.

One lesson of Hurricane Katrina, though, is that preparedness and response go hand in hand, whether the disaster is natural or man-made. Washington's response to Katrina is likely to gear up notably in the days to come, but the question of why it took so long will linger longer than the floodwaters

Hellooo....your compatriots just asked that I be BANNED from this board...
for posting on their threads. They obviously did not want me posting on their threads. I was trying to get along. Now I am being attacked for trying to get along.

If you want to rebut me, start a new thread. Why start the bashing behavior all over again? What is the difference in attacking me on your thread or on mine? Why attack at ALL?

As for me, I don't want a man with a 20-year alliance with an agenda that is antiAMerican. I don't want someone in bed with the Chicago political machine to be my President. I want a President who does not take money or share relationships with terrorists who have bombed our own buildings and police stations.

The most corrupt President was the one before Bush. He is the one who should be in jail on a felony perjury conviction. That has actually been proven. We actually KNOW that is the truth.

As far as McCain not being a maverick or Bush minion...Obama is not an agent of change, he is Washington politics as usual, the most liberal senator in the senate followed closely by his running mate at #3. Neither have any interest in reaching across the aisle to get things done and fix the gridlock in Congress. He is a hypocrit also, he does not care about the country, he puts party first, he cares about using the Presidency to advance his own agenda. He is a DNC minion.




Whoever posted this nasty reply to 'abc' on 11/16/08 should be banned.nm
nm
Michael Savage banned from Great Britian...(sm)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/michael-savage-banned-from-great-britain


GOOD FOR THEM!!!!  LOL.  We need to do the same thing.  I can think of 2 right off the top of my head.  How about Hannity and O'Really?


I thought hateful people were banned from this forum