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

Nice post Katie. It's the electorial vote that puts

Posted By: (sm) on 2008-07-22
In Reply to: Let our leaders hear us loud and clear - Kaydie

the R or D candidate in the Big House, not "We The People" as stated in the Constitution.
Regarding your comment on "armed guards," it got me thinking.....maybe the men and women in the US military should be the deciding or only voters. After all, it is they who protect and defend us from harms way. I have nothing but the highest admiration for them for risking their lives each and every day...and who for? US-the people. That's a he11 of alot more than Congress or the entire presidential staff do, IMO.


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

I think Katie Couric knows a lot more
than Palin about being a VP.  I just said to DH last night that Couric would have made better a VP.  She certainly has the foreign policy down.  She knows the history.  Katie Couric needs no cheat sheet.
With over 200 electorial votes sm
Obama is most likely the winner. I,too, congratulate him and Mr. Biden on their apparent victory, although I may not be happy about it. I just pray our country can survive what is coming.
Getting rid of the electorial college....sm
or at least rewriting it is one of Obama's plans for his presidency. Perhaps his brilliant idea to beef up the registered voters in electorial-rich states will be his research market study to sell the idea to Congress and to the American people.

I don't think the electorial college is the ideal method of determining presidency as it stands now, but I am not sure what the answer needs to be. Popular vote would probably net the same results, a few more densly populous states determining the outcome of the presidency, but it does seem more representative of what the people want than some calculated system such as the electorial college.
nice post
nm
nice post
I liked that you did research on your own... and you admitted that you had been watching the news programs that were making you think certain things about someone. I always have much more respect for someone that doesn't just eat up the crap and actually does research rather than spewing what they "heard" from biased people from either side....
I have to agree wholeheartedly with your likes about her though. Great job :)
Very nice post
Well thought out and well-researched. Definitely gives us all some food for thought.
I think the post was self-explanatory. Nice try, though...
there are other sources for the story. But your comment does define you...Obama has a real problem with the truth, that is coming out...but he is the trustworthy one and Hewitt isn't. LOL. I'm sorry, but its just ridiculous.
Nice post...Al Qaeda would love to have that...
in their propaganda videos. Especially the bit about the terrorist USA who pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them. It is stuff like that that encourages them to keep on coming. That little old bald guy whacking his shoe on the table was right those many years ago.
Nice post. Stick to the facts and away from...
the "opinion" pieces for your information. Watch the pundits and commentators for entertainment. lol.
Agreed ermt... very nice post, but please
nm
I just noticed your post above. Nice adherence. nm

Ummm...wonder how I blindly didn't see all that, Katie Couric was calm and her questions were str
I realize everyone has a blindspot, I certainly do, but when a woman wiggles and waggles on questions that Katie put to her and they were not spiteful, "tearing into her," and she can't answer them, I certainly would not be trying to get into the White House where I might become president and do more harm than good. I am sorry to say, but it is Americans like yourself who do not read the good with the bad who put Bush in the White House that sent me into a depression for weeks. If he could have appointed himself King or despot he would have. I guess you agree with jobs going overseas, not just ours but everyones? We may just not recover from this. Vote for McCain/Palin, it is your right, I just hope you are ready for the consequences. Do you just pass over everything that is said about this woman? She is sneaky. Bush is sneaky. You will never know what she is up to if she is put in the White House.

Anyone who watched the Katie Couric interview and can say it was vicious or slanted just did not watch it. Beat your gums all you want to but try to get informed.
They are nice boys. Learn how to post pictures. nm

Nice post piglet. All your points are well made.

I agree 100% with what you had to say.  Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately.  The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!


As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.


Very nice, thoughtful, kind considerable post. sm
Also very small and closed minded. It's your way or no way.

I really wish you guys were nicer, but it doesn't seem to happen, does it?
nice... i think im gonna post it on my myspace page!
this election is soooo important!
Read the post again. Nothing said about how I vote..nm
nm
It puts you
at the top of my list of level-headed Christians from whom the rest of the party/religion could learn a thing or two, & that is no lie.

I am quite reassured to know that there are some very religious people out there who still manage to separate church & state. I wish there were more of you, or at least, more who were willing to insist that this view be part & parcel of the Republican party. If there were, I'd still be a Republican, but I left the party long ago because of its exclusionary principles.




Still, nobody puts a gun to their heads

and makes them sign on the dotted line.  You can always change your phone number and address.


Personaly, I don't believe much of that crap you're posting is true.  I know recruiters can be persistent, but all this conspiracy theory is just that, conspiracy.


Bush puts name to everything...sm

















Americas
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/grey.gif




















src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif





The Times March 24, 2006






src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,281993,00.jpg
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif


Bush puts name to everything


src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif






President Bush has become the longest-sitting President since Thomas Jefferson — who occupied the White House between 1801 to 1809 — not to exercise his veto, surpassing James Monroe.










Monroe had been in office for 1,888 days before he vetoed his first Bill on May 4, 1822. Jefferson, America’s third president, never exercised his veto.

Yesterday was Mr Bush’s 1,889th day in office. Congress has sent him 1,091 Bills and he has signed them all. His refusal to wield the veto has angered fiscal conservatives. They have become dismayed by his failure to block legislation stuffed with “pork barrel” special interest projects, at a time of growing national debt and runaway spending.

Last month Mr Bush threatened to veto legislation aimed at blocking a sale of US port operations to a Dubai company. He was saved from a showdown after the company sold that part of its interests to a US entity.

Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 Bills, and Bill Clinton 36.


I will bet that he puts his pants on one
DH does! He really is JUST A MAN, his s**t stinks just like the homeless beggars hanging around DC. He really is JUST A MAN. This isn't even humorous any more, just beyond anything I have ever heard. He will never be "one of us", he has himself on too high a podium to drop to some peon's level.
That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)

according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/


Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.


That puts you in the 26% range...(sm)

according to a recent poll asking the question of whether or not Americans felt safe with Obama.


[Exert] "Seventy-two percent of those questioned in the poll released Monday disagree with Cheney's view that some of Obama's actions have put the country at greater risk, with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/13/cnn-poll-obama-not-making-us-less-safe/


Looks like you're still in the minority, a rather small one at that.


This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
I don't think that puts his reputation on the line
If Obama gets elected and he is truly as bad as we think, then we will know God has brought the judgment on us. Serves us right too.

God rarely answers when you try to bargain with him. Praying "prove to me by doing such and such" doesn't seem to bear much fruit from what I've seen. It should be "your will be done"

Flame away.... ;)
This how he puts his campaign coffers to their best use,
oh brother
It is words. When he puts that into action....
I will begin to trust him. His actions will dictate what he meant by that...and if it was just words or sincerity. Since almost everything he is for I am against, I don't see how he could hear my voice, with all due respect. But time will tell. His actions will determine what he meant.
As long as SP puts herself out there and threatens to
she will draw volleys from the firing squad. Truth is that this relentless criticism is the best thing that can happen for the GOP, who needs to turn their eyes in a MUCH different direction when it comes to the leadership void. If they cannot move themselves more toward the center, they are doomed to fail again.
Voucher Program Puts D.C.

Cant trust anything Moore puts out there
nm
And I hope God puts some love and
//
Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/washington/11leak.html?hp&ex=1144728000&en=cfd85f2bec48b42b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

April 11, 2006

White House Memo

 

With One Filing, Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight



WASHINGTON, April 10 — From the early days of the C.I.A. leak investigation in 2003, the Bush White House has insisted there was no effort to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man who emerged as the most damaging critic of the administration's case that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons.


But now White House officials, and specifically President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been pitched back into the center of the nearly three-year controversy, this time because of a prosecutor's court filing in the case that asserts there was a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to undermine Mr. Wilson.


The new assertions by the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, have put administration officials on the spot in a way they have not been for months, as attention in the leak case seems to be shifting away from the White House to the pretrial procedural skirmishing in the perjury and obstruction charges against Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.


Mr. Fitzgerald's filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. It concludes, It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.'


With more filings expected from Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's work has the potential to keep the focus on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney at a time when the president is struggling with his lowest approval ratings since he took office.


Even on Monday, Mr. Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot during an appearance at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Mr. Wilson.


Mr. Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.


Mr. Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Mr. Fitzgerald's court filing revealed. The prosecutor described testimony from Mr. Libby, who said Mr. Bush had told Mr. Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some information from the intelligence estimate, which described Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.


But on Monday, Mr. Bush was not talking about that. You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that, Mr. Bush said. It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it.


Every prosecutor strives not just to prove a case, but also to tell a compelling story. It is now clear that Mr. Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House in the summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Mr. Wilson was seen as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Mr. Bush relied.


It turned out that much of the information about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and that it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.


The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct — Mr. Bush's or Mr. Fitzgerald's — may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems there will be more clues, including some about the conversations between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.


Mr. Fitzgerald said he was preparing to turn over to Mr. Libby 1,400 pages of handwritten notes — some presumably in Mr. Libby's own hand — that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.


One effort — the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate — was taking place in public, while another, Mr. Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby involved.


Last week's court filing has already led the White House to acknowledge, over the weekend, that Mr. Bush ordered the selective disclosure of parts of the intelligence estimate sometime in late June or early July. But administration officials insist that Mr. Bush played a somewhat passive role and did so without selecting Mr. Libby, or anyone else, to tell the story piecemeal to a small number of reporters.


But in one of those odd twists in the unpredictable world of news leaks, neither of the reporters Mr. Libby met, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post or Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, reported a word of it under their own bylines. In fact, other reporters working on the story were talking to senior officials who were warning that the uranium information in the intelligence estimate was dubious at best.


Mr. Fitzgerald did not identify who took part in the White House effort to argue otherwise, but the evidence he has cited so far shows that Mr. Cheney's office was the epicenter of concern about Mr. Wilson, the former ambassador sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to determine what deal, if any, Mr. Hussein had struck there.


Throughout the spring and early summer of 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald concluded, the former ambassador had become an irritant to the administration, raising doubts about the truthfulness of assertions — made publicly by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address in January of that year — that Iraq might have sought uranium in Africa to further its nuclear ambitions.


Mr. Wilson's criticisms culminated in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The Times in which he voiced the same doubts for the first time on the record. He cited as his evidence his 2002 trip to Niger, instigated, he said, because of questions raised by Mr. Cheney's office.


Mr. Wilson's article, Mr. Fitzgerald said in the filing, was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq.


Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the White House effort was a plan to undermine Mr. Wilson.


Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the vice president had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson's credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism, Mr. Fitzgerald's filing said.




I think Lieberman puts Country first. -has guts.nm
nm
At least McCain's wife puts her money into

I haven't seen anything on that. I see where she helps her own race. I haven't heard anything about her helping children with health problems like Mrs. McC.


If anyone has any proof that Mrs. O does help others, I'd seriously like to know about it.


W puts money in blind trust It's been 8 yrs since
but claims he lost money in the meltdown.  Guess economics was/is not his strong suit.  This makes me wonder if his economic advisors were ever able to dumb down their reports enough for W to be able to understand them.  Just 6 more days, praise the Lord. 
Thanks for the article, puts O in a good light really.
Told me how he is trying to rein in the lobbyists and get spending under better control and not things as usual in DC. I am Obama girl, thanks for posting!
I agree neither choice is great, but will vote McCain just as a vote against Obama. nm
x
A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. No chance on Earth he can win. sm
Votes for him only take away from the real candidates.
Well...if it puts Obama in a good light, it is probably owned by George Soros. nm
nm
Good point. I don't vote party, I vote for the
person.  Every Democrat is not bad and every Republican good or vice versa.
Then you need to vote for Obama. A vote for McCain will...sm
not help you. Obama wants to give tax relief to 90% of Americans who earn 1% of the gross earnings in this country. The top 1% of earners bring in 90% of earnings. Any one person who earns $250,000 or less will benefit from Obama's tax plan.
they didn't vote - they registered to vote -
that is a big difference. The votes were not counted, they were stopped by the means in which they were supposed to be stopped - ID verification, address verification, etc. The cards were filled out by the ACORN workers and then given to the proper authorities to sort through.

The phony registrations were pulled out by the actual authorities. ACORN is just a middle man.
We get what we vote for. If we vote "party", we get extremes.
If we make it a point to try to identify candidates who hold moderate views and vote for them, rather than voting a "party ticket", we'll have a better chance of getting away from these extremes, whether right or left.

One of the problems, though, is that candidates often play games with their real positions. During the primaries, they talk the "party" line and then they move to the center for the general election. Both sides do this, unfortunately.

The only hope is to look at their past records - and take them seriously. History is prologue to the future. When a man has done certain things in his adult life, it tells us more about him than anything he says. If Obama hasn't taught us this fundamental truth, we'll never learn it. The evidence about him goes all the way back to his days in law school, and it was available for anyone to see. Some didn't bother to look. Others looked and didn't take it seriously. Either way, we weren't paying attention or he'd have probably never made it through the primaries.

No one can pull the wool over your eyes unless you let them, and the way they do it is by making smooth speeches filled with unlikely promises (and even glaring contradictions as they appeal to groups with opposite interests). They believe we won't notice the lies, exaggerations and mischaracterizations of their opponent's positions, etc. Unfortunately, they are often right.

Let's start taking the candidates' prior records and their life histories as the best evidence of who they really are - not their speeches. If we do this, we'll make better choices.
Not nice.
Of course conservatives are wrong.  And often.  I am one, so I should know.  What I am NOT is a neocon.  That word gets used a lot here and it is used incorrectly.   I am not the original poster but I wanted to point that out. 
Really nice, isn't it?
Not all of them are gone, but a lot were removed.  Smells a lot better on the Liberal Board today, though it probably won't last.
It's really nice to have you here.
As you can see, you may also be called names on this board, as well.  The monitor has asked that they stop, but they continue to do it.  If they begin to attack you here, I hope you will just consider the source, laugh it off and continue to post here because they aren't important and certainly don't represent the majority of normal Americans.
Exactly....have a nice day. :) nm
nm
nice

When a woman gets attacked by a man with knife, do you condemn her because she didn't fight back hard enough?I say condemn the attacker, not the attackee....you attack folks and then condemn them because there feelings where hurt instead of addressing the real problem which is your bullying. 


Nice try, but no....
I started posting here about 3 years ago, and there was no observer but me. If there was one before that, I had no way of knowing that. Taiga did not "steal" Teddy's moniker. They were always the same person, just posting under two different monikers. I have posted under two...Independent for awhile, and then Observer. Observer was not in use when I changed to that moniker, and if there was one before my time...as I stated...I have no way of knowing that. Again...did not accuse Taiga of stealing the Teddy moniker. She posted under both.
Nice. (sm)
Fortunately your opinion on this subject means nothing to me. Those who want to pray will. Those who don't, won't. It is a free country,and while no one can force you to pray, no one can force us not too either. Much as you would like to have that control. What a myopic view of life you have. Party line vote Dem or die and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with you. Sounds decidedly UNdemocratIC to me.
nice try

This comes from the same pinheads who were absolutely certain that Rush would go outta business when Clinton got elected.  Yeah, right!  20 million listeners at least, and HOW many hundreds of millions later?


And y'all actually think Keith Overbite & Mr. Potato Head actually discuss news seriously when 1 has crabs or something crawling up his leg?  And give up the opiates re Rush.  He fixed that problem, but didn't do the resume enhancement like the celebutards do.  Start that empty crap & I'll just keep listing their names.


And just to clarify things, in case anyone didn't catch the post about the NAGS, that's Rush's pet name for the National Assn of GalS.  I knew I wasn't the only Dittohead on the embarrassment of a board.


Face it. Y'all have nothing to offer here, just empty insults and thrills over women "choosing" to kill babies.  That's the only definition y'all have of "choice."  Funny, but I thought choice was supposed to mean that the woman decided either way. Nice try once again.