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

Majority backs GIs, not Iraq War...see link

Posted By: Democrat on 2006-06-19
In Reply to:

Interesting poll, allbeit before the death of Zarqawi and approval of ministers of the police and army.



LINK/URL: Click on this link


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

That last link, w/the Iraq veterans, breaks...sm

My heart, and makes me furious at the same time.  Why isn't John "did-I-mention-yet-today-that-I-was-a-POW-for-5-years?" McCain more supportive of GI benefits?  Anyone?  Cause I'd love to know how he's justified it. 


And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
No, they live in the US, and the US backs Israel.nm
z
And I'll say it again...walking up the backs of the
=
Hawaii backs Martin

The state of Hawaii has backed Andy Martin. CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign exposed as liars.


http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/


Barry is lying to the people and they don't care.  They don't care that the constitution is not being followed. 


Whether Barry wins or not I believe Hillary should file lawsuit to sue him and the DNC chair for covering it up.


Hawaii backs Martin? What does that mean? nm
.
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
Walking up the backs of the middle-class to
xx
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization

by: Krishna Guha and Edward Luce, The Financial Times


photo
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)




    The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.


    In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.


    "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."


    Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.


    "We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."


    Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.


    The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."


    But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.


    "You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."


    Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.


    In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.


    "We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end."


Bush's Own Panel Backs Data on Global Warming

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-warming23jun23,1,200411.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo


U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming


Growing Washington acceptance of climate change is seen in the top science body's finding.

By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers

June 23, 2006

After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.

The report from the National Research Council also concluded that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.

Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system, the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.

The council's review focused on the controversial hockey stick graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.

The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.

There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change … or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work, said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.

The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.

Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties.

Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming — including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide — the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.

It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph, said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Visually, it's very compelling.

The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

After that, the hockey stick was everywhere, Pielke said.

It also became an easy target.

If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science, he said, the hockey stick would be a lightning rod.

One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources — an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.

Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.

The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.

Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions — caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.

The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.

It concluded that, with a high level of confidence, global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.

Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.

The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was less confident that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.

Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding — the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.

Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.

The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.

The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.


Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research

 Finally!  A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!


 July 29, 2005


Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research


WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."


His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.


"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.


Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."


He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."


Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.


"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."


Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."


The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.


The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.


"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."


But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."


Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.


"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."


Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."


Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."


Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.


"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."


But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.


Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.


Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.


With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."


Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.


"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.


But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."


On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."


The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.


In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."


Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."


After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."


But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."


Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.


"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."


Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.





post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
Usually, the majority is right!!!!
.
A majority of 2.
Does it get anymore pathetic?
The majority, as you put it, did not even

know who they were voting for. They heard one thing: CHANGE. Yet, change is not what we are getting. It's politics as usual. O does not know how to lead. He only knows how to follow. He is letting people like Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and countless others walk all over him. He has no clout. He is a lamb being led to the slaughter, yet he doesn't realize it yet.


If he wants to be a good president, he would stop the antics going on now, but I really don't think he knows how to do it. It's a shame, too, because although I did not vote for him, I had hope.


Check photos of him lately. He's not looking so confident anymore. He is starting to think he got in over his head and unless he takes control of the dems, he will go down in history as a president worse than Jimmy Carter.


JMHO


And this has WHAT to do with the fact that the majority..sm
of jobs paying minimum wage are not held by teenagers looking for extra money to buy ipods.

I'm waiting scarecrow with a brain....
The majority of the military

have always been conservative.  However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years.  Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past. 


Because he will likely have a majority in Congress....
and THAT is how you get things passed.
No, Majority knows O could use those qualities
Remember TACT? DIPLOMACY? 2 things that are important qualities in a leader. Especially if you ever want your country to be taken seriously again. Right now it's a laughing stock.
You still here? -being in the majority makes you
nm
The majority of them truly believe in their mission.

I'm simply not in a position to judge all that stuff.  There's far more going on behind the scenes than we know.  That's not to give Bush (or any politician, for that matter) a free pass.


The big threat approaching is Israel & Iraq.  A war there is inevitable (& soon), and they're a huge ally of ours.  The not only deserve our help, but will likely need it.


The Majority of Citizens?
Let's see tomorrow morning.
The moral majority is neither
all that moral, or the majority.  Don't assume who the majority is until they cast their vote.
What I meant was when the majority
of people want same sex marriage, the measure will pass. Until then, they will just have to keep putting it to a vote. We the people have the right to decide what we want; majority rules and most don't want same sex marriage. Have a civil union, have the same benefits, etc, but don't call it marriage.
And just how do you propose to know what the majority
This is exactly the kind of post that completely undermines any credibility that you might perceive that you have.

Speak for yourself. You know nothing of anyone else's reasons for voting for our NEW PRESIDENT. You're going to have a pretty miserable 8 years ahead of you unless you stop beating this old, dead horse.
you don't even realize who the majority are
You seem to fail to remember that not everyone in America voted this election.

69,456,897 people voted for the O

234,367,743 did not

I would not say the majority of America voted for him. He didn't even get 1/3 of America's votes.


He won by a majority...unlike the last guy!
So what's your point?
Oh, but the majority of Americans DOES
More than the majority of Americans still support OUR LEADER - thank you very much
Uh uh definitely with the majority of the vote ...

And with the great help of ACORN.  In the county that I live in, there was a man who was registered by ACORN, voted 3 times and has been deceased since 1986. 


Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
but I'm sure the vast majority believes
that life begins at conception, however, I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.
So did the majority of Congress, Dem and Repub...
or nothing would have passed. Sheesh. You act like McCain passed every bill all by his lonesome. Let's be real here.
I especially liked the majority of votes to Obama
that was interesting also. Lets get democrats back in the white house for peace and prosperity to ALL - :)
The democrats have had the majority for 2 years...
and they have not turned it around. I repeat...if you want socialism...vote for Obama. It is as simple as that.
the majority of chevy vehicles
foreign parts
no, majority was INTIMIDATED by Hitler.

Majority of 2. Why not organize a new wing
after November, they're going to need some new blood, new direction and a platform makeover.
Just shows that majority of USA no longer truly
nm
Impeached by a democratic majority?
What YOU smokin?? lol.
Thats just it. Majority of Americans voting in this
nm
You said it oldtimer! Obama won by majority and
It's time for people to back the new president and be patriotic. Stop the same old vitriol.

But apparently the majority of people
think he is all that, else why would he be our next commander in chief. Good try, just does not work.
How many times has majority been wrong?
nm
You are insulting the majority of Americans
I think your mentality (the sore loser, pouting in a corner type) is the one that needs considering...
Pop 8 was vote of MAJORITY of citizens who said NO...
--
I agree! I think the majority of people who are
nm
Roe versus Wade majority and problems with the law
Actually, I've read where if put to a vote polls have shown that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. Whether abortion is right or wrong aside many people, including many liberal lawyers say that RVW is a badly written law in the first place.
I think a majority of the confusion comes from the way our media shapes the sm
information to us. The European coverage of world events shapes information differently to that seen by many in the viewing public of the US. I have relatives in Ireland who point this out to me all the time.

It's all about programming.
CNN is also broadcast as being a European affiliate, to the one we get here.

I posted another one showing George Galloway letting a Sky News journalist have it. I would love to see this guy have a round with O'Reilly or Hannity. They would not dare because he would wipe the floor with them.

Here's a page, showing news reports/interviews that you won't see on US TV.

http://brasscheck.com/videos/middleeast/me5.html


oh and by the way....you Dems have had a majority in Congress for awhile now...
and what has been accomplished? Why haven't you been busy overturning every ill those nasty Repubs have done? LOL...Congress has even a lower rating with the public than Bush does..do the math, if you can. lol.
oopsss...sorry. I mean the majority of democrats on this board...
I do know some Democrats who are independent thinkers and they are voting McCain-Palin this year. :)
By a very small majority. We dems do not march in ...sm
lock-step like the repubs seem to do.