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

Mustangs Rule!

Posted By: Stardust on 2008-10-26
In Reply to: OK, now you've crossed the line, LOL! - catz

Cool car; uncool carmaker!


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

New rule

Just saw on MSNBC they are polling Barack/Hillary agains McCain (who has the bigger leads).  Of course they only show PA, Ohio, and Florida (the 3 states she did better in). 


New rule - If they are going to show polls, they should show them for all states!  Not just the ones where one candidate is doing better than the other.


Hmm, protocol, rule of law,
Interesting concepts, pitty the administration you support has apparently never heard of them. So let's gut the constitution (no laws in there) so it suits you and your ilk. Outing a covert CIA agent isn't a felony, right? DeLay and Frist? They INVENTED proper protocol/rule of law/ethics. Telling the U.N. and the international community to take a flying leap also clearly falls within the parameters of proper protocol, rule of law, etc., etc. Boy, you might be on to something!

When asked what he thought of western civilation, Gandhi said something like, It's a nice concept. Hmmm...democracy, nice concept.
One Database to Rule Them All sm

Homeland Security, the Keystone Stasi, Now Tracks and Enforces Local Police Warrants


June 20, 2006: For many years, those working to create a total surveillance state have employed the salami tactic of taking away our freedoms one slice at a time. Laws that directly challenge constitutional rights, like the USA PATRIOT Act, are the spectacular exception. Agencies like FEMA quietly prepare plans for martial law, and have built a Shadow Government for military rule without need of a written order. The Bush administration for its part has constantly tested the waters, establishing new realities by fiat (as in its creation of the enemy combatant category to justify unlimited detention without charges), or floating test balloons like the Total Information Awareness program (which was withdrawn officially, even as the NSA's telephone surveillance proceeded to implement its spirit behind the scenes).


Now we must all realize that at some point, the salami runs out. It no longer makes sense to say that our government is creating a police state. The fact is, that state has arrived, complete with One Big Database and the establishment of universal jurisdictions. In an editorial published this week in New York Newsday, Ray LeMoine tells a memorable story of how he was detained by Homeland Security for several hours because of outstanding local police warrants relating to his sale of unlicensed T-shirts (Yankees Suck, among others). We dare not dismiss this as a minor matter; it shows that there is nothing about us in electronic form that Homeland Security does not know. Though he is clearly a believer in the official story of 9/11, LeMoine doesn't let his humorous tone hide the true meaning of his story: Homeland Security, the agency set up to combat terrorism after 9/11 has been given universal jurisdiction and can hold anyone on Earth for crimes unrelated to national security... erasing the lines of jurisdiction between local police and the federal state. If we do not fight back, the day when Homeland Security can detain people for being behind on their credit card payments is not far off. A national ID card with a chip of our complete financial, health and criminal records seems almost superfluous. Once again, 9/11 was a useful pretext for those who exploit terror to wage war on freedom. (nl)


We know that is the exception rather than the rule....
and I sympathize with your plight....however, it is acceptable to abort (kill) 1.2 million babies a year to cover those few who are resistant to all forms of birth control? Okay, so if we add women who are resistant to every form of birth control, women who have been raped or involved in incest, or life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy....that would still probably be roughly 25%-30% of all abortions performed. So why can't we legalize it only for those cases? Why do we have to use it as a relieve-all-responsibility oops form of birth control because some women/men take absolutely NO responsibility where sex is concerned? why can't we address the issues that cause 1.2 million unwanted pregnancies every year? Assign some responsibility? What is so terribly wrong with that??

And finally...why can't people admit what it is. It is killing babies. That is the choice everyone wants. To say it is a blob of cells or tissue is not accurate. And even if that WAS true, it is alive, and would continue to live and grow if it was not killed. If you have been pregnant you know at what stage you feel the fluttering of movement and there is no doubt in the mind of a mother who wants her child that that child is alive inside her. So now we are supposed to believe that it is whether the woman WANTS the child or not that determines whether it is alive?
Exception to the rule
You are so right. I think people are so blown away by Sarah Palin because she is a politician that actually does what she says. What a novel idea! How refreshing.
There's also talk that she won't rule out - sm
going to war with Russia if they invade Georgia. Just what we need, to be fighting THREE wars simultaneously.

And of course, don't forget the possibilities in Pakistan or Korea.

Fun, fun, fun.

Maybe it's time to quit MT and start selling bomb shelters again.
I think you are the exception to the rule then, and I...
commend you for holding feet to the fire. Would that there were more like you. Money hungry greed may have brought us here...but it was lack of oversight that allowed it. Some saw it coming, called it by name and were ignored. You seem to be opened minded to a degree and you have seen what McCain said in 2006. He described the situation we are in to a tee. He warned them, as did Allen Greenspan, as did John Snow. He had it right, and he was ignored. Say what you want about him...he had that right and the Dems on the banking and finance committee had it wrong. And because of that mistake, here we are. I would be much more willing to cut slack if they would own up to their part in it and strive to do better. But they STILL want to blame Republicans totally and accept absolutely NO blame. I'm sorry, oldtimer. That is dishonest and morally bankrupt in my opinion.
Not republican rule
It hasn't been republican rule for 8 years even though we do have a republican president. The Congress and Senate are democratic and they do not allow President Bush to do what he wants much of the time.
I wish there was a rule that the candidates HAVE TO
avoid them and go off in a direction of their own choosing. Especially when it's something they already said before. This second debate had me yawning.
Yes it is. That family off limits rule did not
nm
exception proves the rule

 do that phase strike a familiar note?


Hmm. Under the last 8 years of republican rule, MY
being send to INDIA, PAKISTAN, and the PHILIPPINES. My pay is less than half what it used to be. I lost my 1-bedroom apartment and am now squeezed into a tiny studio. My car is falling apart. My 401K has had nothing added to it in over 5 years. My emergency savings is almost dried up. And now it looks like the MTSO I work for is just about to chip away at our pay once again.

Yeah, my hard work is being "rewarded" alright, thanks to the no-holds-barred, free rein big business has been given for the last 8 years.

I sure do hope McCain wins. I've gotten so used to having nothing but hot dogs and macaroni & cheese for every meal, that I just wouldn't be able to deal with the change if things ever got better. Plus with more of the same for the next term, I might finally qualify for food stamps. I sure wouldn't want to miss out on that opportunity.
The rule is that you are requested not to slam on other boards. sm
Conservatives and liberals are welcome to post on each other boards if it is done with respect.
I agree. I think they should make a rule that a candidate...sm
can only talk about and show pictures or video clips of himself/herself, no opponents' names allowed at all. That would force them to tell us what their platform is and let us make the comparison.
The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm
on the case. They do not hear every case presented to them. They are very likely to send it back to the lower court if they think it is frivolous.
Obama set to undo "conscience rule" sm

for healthcare workers who refuse to participate in performing abortions or dispensing birth control methods which disagree with their religious convictions.  So now a woman's right to choose whether to abort her unborn child trumps a healthcare professional's right to adhere to their religious convictions?  The article even mentions Catholic healthcare facilities as not being exempt, and we know how the Church feels about abortions.  Unbelievable!!! 


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html


The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove

Dirty politics equals dirty water.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines


From the Los Angeles Times


EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove


The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.


By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

June 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.

The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.

In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.

Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.

Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.

Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.

Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.

In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.

I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.

Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.

White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.

The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.

Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.

The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.

For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.

White House and administration officials disagreed.

At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.

When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.

The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.

A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.

That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.

In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.

A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.

We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.

Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.

In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.

His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.

The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.


 


Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to
.
Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to

Golden Rule? Didn't realize that was rob peter
xx
If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
Someone to rule over us for her life time? I dont think so. Clarence Thomas is enough to bear with

Miers' Answer Raises Questions



  • Legal experts find a misuse of terms in her Senate questionnaire 'terrible' and 'shocking.'

  • By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


    WASHINGTON — Asked to describe the constitutional issues she had worked on during her legal career, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers had relatively little to say on the questionnaire she sent to the Senate this week.

    And what she did say left many constitutional experts shaking their heads.

    At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights Act, she said, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

    But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have the same proportion of blacks, Latinos and Asians as the voting population.

    That's a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation requirement under the equal protection clause, said New York University law professor Burt Neuborne, a voting rights expert. If a first-year law student wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was unacceptable.

    Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, also an expert on voting rights, said she was surprised the White House did not check Miers' questionnaire before sending it to the Senate.

    Are they trying to set her up? Any halfway competent junior lawyer could have checked the questionnaire and said it cannot go out like that. I find it shocking, she said.

    White House officials say the term proportional representation is amenable to different meanings. They say Miers was referring to the requirement that election districts have roughly the same number of voters.

    In the 1960s, the Supreme Court adopted the one person, one vote concept as a rule under the equal protection clause. Previously, rural districts with few voters often had the same clout in legislatures as heavily populated urban districts. Afterward, their clout was equal to the number of voters they represented. But voting rights experts do not describe this rule as proportional representation, which has a specific, different meaning.

    Either Miers misunderstood what the equal protection clause requires, or she was using loose language to say something about compliance with the one-person, one-vote rule, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law. Either way, it is very sloppy and unnecessary. Someone should have caught that.

    Proportional representation was a focus of debate in the early 1980s. Democrats and liberal activists were pressing for Congress to change the Voting Rights Act to ensure minorities equal representation on city councils, state legislatures and in the U.S. House.

    They were responding to a 1980 case in which the Supreme Court upheld an election system in Mobile, Ala., that had shut out blacks from political power. The city was governed by a council of three members, all elected citywide. About two-thirds of voters were white and one-third black, but whites held all three seats.

    The Supreme Court said Mobile's system was constitutional, so long as there was no evidence it had been created for a discriminatory purpose.

    The equal protection clause does not require proportional representation, the court said in a 6-3 decision. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said the decision gave blacks the right to cast meaningless ballots.

    In response, Congress moved to change the Voting Rights Act to permit challenges to election systems that had the effect of excluding minorities from power. The Reagan administration opposed those efforts, saying they would lead to a proportional representation rule.

    Congress adopted a hazy compromise in 1982. It said election systems could be challenged if minorities were denied a chance to elect representatives of their choice…. Provided that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion of the population.

    This law put pressure on cities such as Dallas and Los Angeles and many states to redraw their electoral districts in areas with concentrations of black or Latino voters. The number of minority members of Congress doubled in the early 1990s after districts were redrawn.

    In Dallas, Miers supported a move to create City Council districts so black and Latino candidates would have a better chance of winning seats.

    She came to believe it was important to achieve more black and Hispanic representation, Hasen said. She could have a profound impact as a justice if she brought that view to the court. So from the perspective of the voting rights community, they could do a lot worse than her.

    White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also emphasized that Miers' experience was more important than her terminology.

    Ms. Miers, when confirmed, will be the only Supreme Court Justice to have actually had to comply with the Voting Rights Act, she said.


    New Bush rule makes it easier to hire foreign workers

    Dec 10, 8:43 PM EST


    Administration changes to farm worker hiring afoot


    By SUZANNE GAMBOA
    Associated Press Writer


    WASHINGTON (AP) -- As it prepares to leave office, the Bush administration is moving to make it easier for U.S. farming companies to hire foreign field workers, which farmworker groups say will worsen wages and working conditions.


    Farm groups said that changes to the H2A visa program, used by the agriculture industry to hire temporary farm workers, were posted on the Labor Department's Web site at midnight Tuesday but have since been taken down.


    Labor Department spokesman Terry Shawn said whatever was posted wasn't the final version of the new rule, which Shawn said would be released Thursday and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18.


    The Bush administration published a proposed version of the new rule last Feb. 13 and received nearly 12,000 public comments, Shawn added. The next version will be a final rule and can take effect 30 days after publication. Some of its provisions would take effect in mid-January and others later in the year, the farmworker groups said.


    Farm worker advocates and the United Farm Workers union said the version that appeared on the Web site would lead to a flood of cheaper workers.


    "The government has decided to offer agriculture employers really low wages, low benefits, no government oversight to bring in foreign workers on restricted visas and thereby convince them they should do this instead of hiring undocumented workers," said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farmworkers.


    The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers, Goldstein said.


    But Assistant Labor Secretary Leon Sequeira said Wednesday evening the agency is not dropping the obligation to obtain certification, which is required by law.


    Paul Schlegel, American Farm Bureau public policy director, said many of the changes will make the program a little less burdensome for employers. He said existing laws prevent employers from hiring foreign workers if the jobs can be filled by U.S. workers.


    "My members want to make sure they have a legal supply of labor," said Schlegel, who added that he had not reviewed all the proposed changes.


    The rule changes are a part of a pattern of last-minute regulatory changes being rushed into effect by the Bush administration before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.


    The effect is to make it harder for Obama to change course on some policies favored by Republicans and the business community.


    "We are hopeful that the Obama administration would recognize the utter mistake and unfairness of this proposal," Goldstein said. Congress has a procedure for reversing the rules, he said.


    Many of the last-minute changes by the Bush administration have come in the area of public lands and the environment, including easing regulations on mining waste and allowing handguns in national parks. Another pending rule would grant greater leeway to railroads to transport hazardous materials through densely populated areas.