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

Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.

Posted By: Confined my search to the current century....sm on 2008-12-09
In Reply to: Thanks, very kind and thoughtful of you to point that out....sm - ms

Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.

Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?

Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."

In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.

There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.

Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.


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

Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.

Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?

Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."

In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.

There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.

Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Isn't google wonderful? For expanding your narrow scope? sm
I also remember them comparing the two a while back, especially since Studds passed away recently. I guess it does depend on whose imagination you're stretching, doesn't it.

Nice of you to be so graphic about it.
Did we know the scope of his atrocities then?
I'm going to have research that a little bit, because I was just a kid in the eighties. I don't know the exact year the turning point happened with Iraq.

I have a question for you though, would you like to see Saddam back in power? I'm just kind of wondering whose side you're on?
My father in the 40s and 50s (not so long ago in the scope of things) sm
Was a white child growing up with no mother and an alcoholic father. A black woman who lived nearby with her own children used to let him come and eat with them. If not, he would not have survived. As he grew up, he didn't see race as a boundary...he had many friends both black and white. He loved to dance and in those days there were "black" dance halls and "white" dance halls. He liked the music and dancing better in the "black" dance halls and loved to go there and dance with his friends. The KKK came to our house one day in the late 60s and stomped my father while wearing golf cleats all over his body. We have come soooo far since then, but there are still people who bear the scars of those days. I think for the majority, prejudice is dying off. We are realizing how utterly ridiculous it is to judge someone by their skin color, blue, purple or orange. But I do agree there are still some who are hurt and cannot trust. The only racists or bigots I see these days are very uneducated and unintelligent people. I hope and pray we can all just get along and that no one hurts anyone else over all of this. My 11-year-old son said to me months ago, before Obama was even nominated, that he was afraid if Obama was elected someone would try to assassinate him, and that the same thing might even happen if Hillary was elected. My 11-year-old child could see that with his own eyes, even before I saw for myself the hatred that some people have. God help us protect whichever candidate wins, because there will be enemies either way.
Are you that narrow-minded?
Are you so stuck on being "anti-religious" or amti-Christian or whatever that you don't realize everyone that opposes abortion is not a Christian?

Why is it if someone opposes abortion they MUST be Christian. If someone opposes abortion that has no religious beliefs, what do you call them? Maybe they just know murder when they see it?
only the conservative, narrow-minded ones!
nm
That is the MOST narrow-minded post....
I have seen here. Got a mirror handy? :-)
narrow minded? yup that is the O lovers
P.S. - last time someone was called stupid they were banned.

You don't like what I have to say fine. Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself. No need to be rude - oh wait! Your an O lover. Guess you do feel you have the right to be rude.

As Ben Franklin said, which fits perfectly about your post, .... "Better to keep silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
More like narrow minded people
Without resorting to throwing out some silly retort.

Who says your way is the right way? That is why we live in AMERICA - we are FREE to make our own choices. It is not up to the government to watch your children. That is YOUR job. Their job is to uphold the Constitution OF the people BY the people...lest you forget!
Perhaps your narrow world, not mine.

Trying to figure out exactly what a community organizer does (besides having dinner with terrorists, listening to - but never actually hearing - hate speech in church, rallying fraudulent votes, etc.). 


Perhaps you could enighten me, o wise one?


Nor I with the cloistered and narrow-minded.
>>>>
No, I challenge you to show me mean, narrow minded,
shallow, pure hatred from the reps to the dems on this board.

I think you libbies have it won down pat. Same on other boards, not just this one.

And for that matter, show me anywhere, that same degree of "hatred" toward Obama, that is now being shown to Gov. Palin.

I don't mean mere dislike, or spoof of his lack of anything, either. I mean the hatred.

Republicans don't act that way. But if they have, please give me an example, please.
It doesn't narrow our view of the world,
it expands it.
That is so narrow-minded and not true. You are so judgemental (sm)
apparently, you are the only non-racist, good person in the United States, aren't you? Take yourself off your pedestal. Many of us are just as kind-hearted and see race as a nonissue as you claim to be. Get off your high horse.
You've got to be kidding! How narrow-minded
nm
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
Good don't guess. It's my guess though.nm
x
My guess would be

THREE!



guess what
Now you know how it feels, don't you?
That's anybody's guess. sm
But I think it is an educated guess to think most democratic voters in this election were against the war and most republican voters were for the war. Just my guess.
I guess your'e in the 39%
Bush approval rating dips to 39 percent - poll

Wed Oct 12, 9:47 PM ET

President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 39 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Bush's approval rating dipped in the poll below a mid-September ranking of 40 percent. The survey also found only 28 percent of respondents believed the country was headed in the right direction, NBC reported.

Bush's political challenges have been piling up in recent weeks, from criticism over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, to growing unease over rising gas prices to conservative discord over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many conservatives are outraged that Bush picked the White House insider with no judicial experience instead of a judge with clear-cut conservative credentials who could be counted on to move the high court firmly to the right.

Twenty-nine percent of people surveyed said Miers was qualified to serve on the highest court in the United States, while 24 percent thought she was not qualified and 46 percent said they did not know enough about her, NBC said.

The poll also found that strong majorities did not believe that recent charges against former House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas or a federal investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, were politically motivated, NBC said.

DeLay has been indicted in Texas on money-laundering and conspiracy charges linked to campaign financing. Frist is being investigated over a stock sale.

With the 2006 congressional elections a year away, 48 percent of respondents said they preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who said they preferred Republican leadership, NBC said.

The 9-point difference was the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had been tracking the question, NBC said.

The poll of 807 adults was conducted from Saturday to Monday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points
where are you? I guess some way
from Houston, too close to it myself! you are right about the crime wave, up just about everywhere. have your kids told you what Sugarland and Ft. Bend County are like now?

Anyway, nobody is going to hire a medical Transcriptionist with 143 days experience on her resume and I don't feel inclined to hire a president with that, either.

Immigration is not the problem; invasion is, lawbreakers are a problem. We just had a pastor on TV in Houston who has had 5 wrecks, all caused by uninsured motorists and that is the least of it. I personally have seen what is happening to our ER's, unfortunately, the media says little about it. I understand 87 hospitals in southern California have folded. No private hospital can withstand the onslaught of all this clinic business. But, of course, the actual clinics designed for this are only open during regular business hours. Well, just a few thoughts of mine.
To Guess Who?

Sam,


Here, here! Couldn't have said it better myself! We ALL have our own personal experiences with illegals.  Where is the mention of all the illegals that come here with drugs, and murder and rape our people?! Did I mention the pedophiles?! Just watch the news and it's all over the place! Just yesterday, they were talking about an illegal from Mexico in SanFrancisco that killed a father and his 2 boys, over a traffic incident!!!??? He was part of a gang! He previously was in trouble with the law before, and nothing was done! Now 3 people are dead, and a wife and 2 other children are forever torn apart by this low-life piece of sh*T that couldn't care LESS about life, liberty, and the pursuit!!!! Same story just a few months ago in LA.  Another gang member (illegal) shot a young teen and he is now dead! These are just 2 of the MANY stories out there! Even the people that are coming here "for a better life", I can understand that.  What I don't understand is them coming here and getting FREE medical, FREE housing, etc. etc. etc.... Why the hell are THEY entitled, but we, as natural-born citizens are not, because we may "make too much money?!" My dad is 62 years old, and probably will work till the day he dies, because he isn't "entitled" to any of this, he doesn't have savings or 401K to fall back on.  My husband busts his butt, and pays a LOT of $ every month so that we all have medical, why? so they can come here and drop a kid for free, at the expense of OUR tax dollars?! BS!!! You wanna come here, fine! Then WORK for your OWN medical, housing, food, etc. etc.! I agree with the above, as for the lawbreakers, molesters, murderers, gang-bangers, let them all rot on an island together! And don't come here and wave your Mexican flag, or any other flag for that matter! If you went to other countries with your American flag, you would most likely be shot!


So please, Guess Who, get a grip and a life!


To everyone else, have a lovely day!


Guess what?! At 17, you should not
be having sex!  Duh!  My mother started working outside the home when I was 12.  She gave me VALUES of responsibility, of self-respect, and the consequences of my actions.  I never had to be told not to have premarital sex.  Unreal!  If this stuff was coming out about Chelsey Clinton, you all would be all over it!  What a meltdown!
You must be, I guess....nm
x
THough I guess they won't be able to use them...
if we have two women running next time...lol. Guess I can put a big red X through "him" and write on "her." lol.
Well, then I guess I have a very

simple view of politics.  I would think that if a bad bill is being put on the table, that enough politicians will see that it is bad and will vote against it, i.e. the bailout bill. 


I guess that's just too simple.  Agree to disagree.


I guess we will have to.............. sm
learn to say "Do you want fries with that?"

I'd say LOL if it weren't such a scary prospect.


Nothing to guess about. s/m
They'll be crying about their bottom line profit which they will pass down to consumers and they'll lay everyone off so they can send the jobs overseas.  No guess about it.  Then they'll cry some more when no one has any money to buy their overpriced stuff.
Well, guess I can guess! what it says.
We had several Cubans come over here back in the late 60's, all close friends, one a doctor who warned all of us then where medicine was going and he was right on the money. They fled Cuba for their lives at the time. I am watching my country unravel and there is not a dang thing I can do about it outside of this one vote.
My guess is...and only a guess....
because SS is in such pitiful shape now, this will take the place of it for those of us still working...while we continue to pay for those who are on social security NOW (with our payroll taxes) because in a congress in times past Democrats decided to "borrow" from social security and never paid it back. Liberal socialist ideas NEVER work. And people keep voting them in anyway and blaming it on Republicans. LOL. Like mice on a treadmill. Sigh.
Well, then, I guess we should

keep the 10 Commandments in church too.  Then we could just go around raping, killing, stealing, lying, whatever we felt like doing.  I believe 76 some odd percent of the U.S. describes their religion as Christianity.  We let Madeline O'Hair or whatever her name is take away prayer in schools, etc. etc.  I am sick to death of this p.c. stuff.  If someone wants to be an atheist or muslim or what the heckfire ever, let 'em be.  If they don't want to participate with the MAJORITY then I don't know of any law that makes them. 


Guess who said this

"we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."


The New Yorker Magazine


This is not an opinion, simply a quote.


My guess would be..............sm
just like the rest of the sheeple, they have been duped into believing this man will turn the economy around with his smoke-and-mirrors approach to healing the financial condition of this country, which in turn benefits them as the money is redistributed back up to the top. Who do you think will ultimately benefit from Obmama's plan. That's right..the rich...as the lower and middle class have more disposable income, the money will trickle right back up to the top.
my guess is a lot of them
x
I guess a lot of them
Question: I would like to know who "them" are?
Well, I guess you don't but
at least if you see it alive you know if it is sick.  I posted earlier about chickens.  I promise you if you ever saw the LIVE chickens loaded in the crates on the truck headed for the slaughter house you would NEVER EVER eat another chicken  And that's a pretty site compared to the inside of a 500 foot chicken house where hundreds of chickens are raised never seeing the sunlight and standing toe to toe in their own excrement.  Well.....get the picture?  But by the time they get to the grocery store all neatly packaged...........want me to tell you where they get the cut up chickens, breasts, thighs, legs, wings?  No?  I didn't think so.
I guess it's okay then............sm
especially in light of the fact they were serving coffee! LOL
guess not................sm
ms, but I guess we will all get a bowl of that ice cream now.
I think she did just guess also (sm)
I know she had been reading some articles in political magazines about him, not Muslim magazines.  So that part probably should not have even been mentioned in my post, as I think it had nothing to do with it.  She is not Muslim.  She is not religious at all I don't think.  She was a coworker I enjoyed talking with but since I went back home to work I haven't talked to her much so have not discussed it with her recently.  She and her husband consider themselves African-American although she is a mixed race.  So she may have been following his progress because of that, not sure.
Then I guess you can....... sm
take it up with God when you see Him. This kind of reasoning is so in line with the "me, me, me" greedy society that we have now. And as far as adopted children....I know quite a few who view their adoptive parents, the ones who loved them and provided for them, as their "real" parents rather than the biologic parent and have no desire whatsoever to meet the biologic parent. And I am sure they are thankful that the biologic parent didn't take the easy way out for herself and deny them the right to life.

My guess is that they don't like him because he is ...
BLACK!
Let me guess....(sm)

Since you call yourself FeFiFo, your last name must be Fum?  Or is it Pfffffft?  I know you use that as a sign off a lot.  Doesn't sound Jewish at all to me.  LOL.  First of all, *sm* is not a moniker; it simply means *see message.*  And so what if he/she doesn't use a moniker? 


Using a moniker isn't cowardly, it's protecting one's identity....that is unless you want to be considered cowardly as well since you do the same thing. 


Try sticking to the subject for a while.  *SM* (assuming it's the same person throughout this thread) has brought up some very interesting ideas concerning the situation, and yet the only response you have to these ideas (the other side) as well as mine (basically just backing up *SM*) is to call us ignorant.  I thought this was a board for discussion, not a board for the 4-year-old *it's mine -- no it's mine* tantrum you seem to want to throw.


I guess that's no better than
Those first exects that got the bailouts and went to the resorts and spent $$$$$$$ at the spas.

I loved the replies to the ad. I say no more bailouts for anyone. NONE, NADA, ZIP. After seeing what these "people" do with the bailout money makes me sick. And the fact that nobody in congress questions it or takes the money back makes me even sicker. Congress should find out what they spent on that ad and demand they return that money or else find themselves in a nice little 8x8 room (metal bars not optional).
You got it - I guess
I'm with you. I don't understand it. This is a guy, a man, a human being. He doesn't have any supernatural powers, unless you call hyptnotizing people into trances.

But it is all the celebrity status. Most people believe that if a celebrity movie start says he's great then they must be right. People worship celebrity stars so why wouldn't they worship obama.

It's just beyond me their reasoning, but at least I know I've got some sense because I don't follow their reasoning and think for myself.

It's just very hard to educate people now adays. Especially after they've been brainwashed so much.
Well....I guess it is our job to

research and find out who voted for what and wanted what speciality added to the stimulus and when we get the chance......VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!  If we start holding them accountable and voting them out for their bad decisions, maybe these politicians will think twice before they screw their constituents up the rear.


This whole thing disgusts me.  Here we are talking about our economy and the need to stimulate it and all some in government care about is getting free stuff for them.  We want new furniture.  Hey...let's all set a good example for the environment and charge new hybrid vehicles for the government to the tax payers.  Correct me if I'm wrong.....don't they make enough money to buy their own hybrid cars if that is what they want?  


I'm seriously considering the whole trip to DC with my torch and pitchfork.  I'm getting VERY irritated with our government.  If this so called stimulus package passes, I will be taking a trip.  That is all I've got to say. 


My guess is that...(sm)

she couldn't answer O'Reilly's questions because he wouldn't shut up long enough for her to get it out.  That's how it always works on his show.  I really don't see the point of anyone going on his show.  He doesn't interview people, he just screams out his right wing crazy crap.  It's like watching Jerry Springer.


The no spin zone ---- Good for right wing books, screaming matches, and, of course, door mats.


Let me guess...(sm)

You're going with the back-peddling New York Post excuse that that's supposed to be Pelosi?  Give me a break!


If they, and you, are going to be racist, you should at least have the balls to admit it. --- Pitiful.


this is not a guess
Which thing is a fact?

a. That Iran has, at this moment, long-range missiles aimed at our heartland?
b. That Iran has some uranium that could be used, years and years from now, for nuclear weapons, if nobody ever bothered negotiating with them and everybody treated them like dangerous lunatics?

The facts point to one option (and in fact the NYT article covered some of this), but the slant and the propanda lead, as always, to the other one.

I don't have any rose-colored glasses. What I have is the knowledge that our government has lied over and over to get us into war, that newspapers and TV have accepted and regurgitated those lies, and that those lies have repercussions far beyond what the news is willing to report. At some point we've got to stop listening to people we know are dishonest, saying exactly the things we JUST HEARD A FEW YEARS AGO to send us to war with Iraq.

Of course, the next step will be a humanitarian crisis, as we discover the Iranian government is killing some people we never cared about before, but that now provide a convenient excuse for us to get even madder! (Kurds, could you move over a bit?)
Let me guess...(sm)

You also can't "grasp the idea" that there are people in this country who are starving, or people who are losing their homes because of medical bills, or younger people who are simply struggling for everything, or people who are paying through the nose to get their kids through college, and yes, actually have to put off for a few days buying some things.  You really need to open your eyes.  There are people in this country who cannot afford the finer things in life.  We have 2 jobs and work overtime but we can't afford vacations most the time, certainly cannot save 600 a month, etc.  Let me define "snooty" for you:  The act of looking down one's nose and condemning those who are not as fortunate (or lucky) as oneself.  I personally would have chosen a different word. 


I wouldn't stay in that glass house too long if I were you.  Someone might come by with a rock.


That's my guess too..nm
nm