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

No, what's hard is not getting banned from

Posted By: the forum. Gotta 'nice it up'. on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Must also be hard for some people to give direct answers after making a statement like that. - Zville MT




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

Banned..not me
Sweet honey, Im here..banned?  For what?  I dont break rules or laws and try to keep my posts respectful..**wish the conservatives would take the same hint**..I just state the FACTS in America right now..No, sweetie pie..to your dismay, I was not banned..I  was just cooling my heels in Mexico, Tijuana for a few days as Tijuana is only two hours from my home and I frequent the town quite a bit..and have friends down there..But......IM......BACK....**Kiss.Kiss..Kiss..*..
Maybe they were banned. nm
xxx
People are not banned by their sig,
they are banned by their e-mail address.
I risk getting banned, but all I can think of
reading your post is: STUPID and living in a sdmall village in the MIDWEST, right?
Hehehehehe!
If hate was banned, this would be
NM
For people who wanted me banned ....
you certainly want to continue to engage me.

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

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

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

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

Shockingly unprepared


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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


I thought hateful people were banned from this forum

Hard to believe
that there are still people in this country who can't see this, who still worship Bush no matter how badly he disregards the Constitution and American freedom.  Our forefathers must be turning in their graves.
It is hard to believe, but a lot believe whatever sm
they hear on TV news, etc. They have heard the term our democracy so much, everyone believes this is our form of government, but it is not. America is a Constitutional Republic. Things are said enough and you eventually believe them. This is how propaganda works.
not so hard to believe

from http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/100506clinton.htm


The Clintons and the Bushes have been known to vacation together in more recent times. Earlier this year on CBS, Clinton revealed that he looks upon the Bushes as a surrogate family, and how Barbara Bush refers to him as her son. Is this really a picture of two distinct and opposed political ideologies pitted against one another?


You know, if you look hard enough

on the internet you can find "facts" to back up just about any ridiculous claim from two-headed monsters, to ape babies to all sorts of conspiracy theories.  There's even a cult that worship their own stool (yes I am not making this up) and I'm sure this cult has multiple references and "facts" to back up their beliefs in preserving their feces forever. 


But all that doesn't make it true.  And the discriminating and intelligent person should be able to tell feces from fact, but apparently you can't.


Who says they don't fit, maybe you are just not trying hard enough! nm
nm
Must have been hard..........sm
to hold that little baby, knowing it was thrown away by her mother and had to suffer such consequences. I sometimes think situations like that are worse than even the partial birth abortion.
Hard to believe

Question is who is behind him and who put him where he is.  This is an old article but the issues are still current.  And this is from..The Pakistan Daily (not America)


http://www.daily.pk/world/84-worldnews/6726-barack-obama-is-not-a-us-citizen.html


 


Not hard to believe
First, I find trying to associate Sarah Palin with this lady is ridiculous.

Obama's associations not so ridiculous, especially when there are pictures, witnesses, etc.

Second, it is not so hard to believe that Sarah and Todd have not met these people. My mom and dad did not meet my inlaws until 2 weeks before our wedding when we had a dinner. And my mom's parents didn't meet her inlaws until maybe a week before her wedding.
Trying really hard to think
why I would care what Rick Warren thinks. 
This is not hard to
In the view of Christians:

1. God does not condone evil, nor does He protect those who commit evil acts from the consequences of those actions.

2. There is a responsibility to protect the innocent that supercedes any conflicting obligation that might exist toward those who would kill them.

3. God was much harsher toward the oppressors of the innocent than anything the CIA has ever done. Try reading about the plagues He visited upon Egypt if you want to talk "torture".

I could go on, but there's no point. I'll just say thank God for Christians; a lot of people are alive in Los Angeles because we were able to disrupt a plan that was already in motion. If left up to the faux moralists (who would torture their own grandmothers in a minute if they thought it would save their own lives), those people would be dead. But hey - no AL Qaida would have had to look at a caterpillar!
You are very welcome. Its hard sm
to keep up with when you work for them much less the general public.
Yep, it's not hard to believe that the neocon
Limberger is a liar in the midst of all of his drama how can he keep a story straight?

He probably forgets half of it anyway, that's the drug effect.
Laughing so hard I go...
 into silent laughing, mode, thinking I will fall off my chair but I don't. That's how much I am laughing at this. He did make an appearance and say something, however lukewarm it was, I will say that for him, more than others do when they actually do kill/lie/out people.  Chavez, on the other hand, is giving oil away, giving billions to help Cuba and The Dominican Republic with oil prices which have soared to $4 a gallon in the islands. It is part of what he calls Petrocaribe. He is helping to rebuild decrepit refineries in the islands as well. Same goes for his own country where you can fill your tank for about $2. Whatever his politics are; he is sharing the wealth of his country with, omg!!! real everyday people and poor everyday people. What an evil dangerous man. I think we should kill him.  Want to really annoy a Republican...share whether or not the person/country with whom you are sharing meets your own moral criteria for giving, you know, the worthy poor versus the unworthy poor. And before anyone starts in with Chavez beomg a communist, socialist, a danger to the United States tripe, I have one word...China.
Not really that hard to grasp.
A great article about the Gulf of Tonkin incident can be read here:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/
g/gu/gulf_of_tonkin_incident.htm

But to answer more plainly, the point is that Johnson in all ways was a dead ringer for today's Republicans. He did not represent the Democratic ideals then or now. Interesting snip of the article:

Most Americans know little of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Historians have shown that the Johnson administration provoked the incident with the intention of crafting a pretext for making overt the American covert involvement in Vietnam.

Sound like anyone you know? Sound like two Texas politicians might have owned the same playbook? Should either one of them be admired for that? I can certainly say no!

So when are those on the Wrong Right going to place blame where blame is clearly due on BOTH sides of the aisle?
I find it hard to believe you don't see it.

I would say a big no on that one - why are people trying so hard to get her in
I haven't figured out yet why people are trying so hard to get her into office. She should go back to being a Senator from NY. She even said earlier in her campaign that being a Senator is a very good job. I have not figured out (and I really have tried to be objectionable) as to why people want her back in there. Doesn't anyone remember what it was like when the Clintons were in before. I know that speaker of the house doesn't get her "in" the white house, but you have to remember that if something happens to President and VP then speaker of the house is next in line. That would make me very nervous and I'd be constantly looking over my shoulder as to what she and Bill are up to. I think she should go back to being a senator or congress person and leave it at that.
Its hard to calm down
You know when Kerry ran against Bush I did not feel this way. When Gore ran it was a little different because he was still associated with the clintons and I didn't not want a Clinton 3rd term. I just can't understand how someone can say something so shameful and hurtful. I can't even imagine what Obama's wife is thinking. Probably one of her biggest fears, and then along comes her husband's oponent and says something like this? Just really gets the blood pressure going. Some of the media is trying to make excuses for her but there is just no excuse. I wouldn't think so harshly if she had come out right away and said in no way did she mean what came out of her mouth, but she waits til the end of the day and then tries to cover it up and doesn't even apologize. Despicable and sleezy!!!!!!
I really find it hard to believe
the Clintons when I know deep down they don't want him for prez either.  How can you endorse someone when you tried so hard to put them down and show they weren't right for the job in the first place?
What is so hard about answering a
nm
That may be, but it is hard for me to understand....sm
after being a prisoner of war and saying he was tortured that he can say that torture of prisoners is OK. This only puts our soldiers in harm's way.
See. Was that so hard? It is up to anyone who reads it...
what to take from it.
And I think he works very hard trying to ...
take down a God he doesn't even believe exists by ridiculing people who know He exists. If God doesn't exist, what difference does it make? Methinks he doth protest too much...lol. Lotta guilt there from somewhere. lol.
I work hard and get no help from anybody.
nm
It is very hard to believe this senario when...sm
she says she is an MT and between she and her husband are earning 24,000 a year and working their butts off. Something just doesn't add up. She is the one that brought the subject up about what she and her husband make. Her opinion of what working her butt of means and mine is very different. 40 hours a week as an MT even with minimum production and a the lowest cents per line would easily add up to more than 18-20,000 a year. Hello.
It is hard to believe that so many people
can put so much hope, trust, adoration and committment, thus making a god of this man. It is plain sickening.
hard hearted
Wow, I am offended, I am actually very soft hearted and concerned for many people and causes, but I guess, since I don't agree with you that makes me EVIL. You guy are too much, lol!
At least now we know why he has been pushing so hard
Vote early and vote often.


no no no. It is hard to tell how people
mean things when typing and I read my post and thought maybe it came across negatively!
Still feel for you, it must be hard to keep
up such a happy facade with such hate and bitterness inside of you. I can just imagine you hunkered down over your keyboard, directing your anger and bitterness to those out in cyberspace who don't think like you. There are so many larger issues in this world that are much more important than gay marriage. The time will come when it will be accepted. Until then, why not turn your negative energy into something positive instead of dwelling on something the majority of us don't want.
Oh no, Mr. Bill. Another BC die-hard?
No wonder you are so nauseated by the countdown. Suddenly your posts make perfect sense, even though there is no logical connection between the BC blowhards and reality. So much for the open-minded thingy.

The precise reference I was making was "methinks thou doest protest too much," or in some transliterations, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I was using the phrase rather loosely in an attempt to avoid the pounding libs often take for being all elite if they quote Shakespeare or try to use his Bardisms. It's from Hamlet. Doth and doest have been used interchangeably in literature, as have you and thou. Like any quotation, it takes on its fullest meaning when it appears within its context.


Why do you just ignore the hard
the gutter? Girl, you need to get a life! Oh, that's right, you said you did already. Transcribing 3500 lines a day, then the rest of a day stirring the pot on an internet forum just isn't my idea of a life.
It was hard to watch that...
It was like watching a cockroach squirm around after being sprayed with Raid.
I find it hard to believe....#7
that Canada would want to inherit our problems. Mexico? Well, so many of them live here already.......I really can't see them combining governments cooperatively - our country can't even get along (dems and pubs).
You would have a hard time.......... sm
convincing most schools that they need to teach basic good values to students. They would argue, and I tend to agree with them, that they have their hands full teaching children the educational skills needed to be successful in school and college. More and more is being required of our children at a younger and younger age. Most of the teaching revolves around learning the skills necessary to pass the standardized tests required in most states. Here in Texas, TAKS instruction takes up the majority of the school day. My son has a 2-hour math class and 2 separate language arts classes, both subjects of which are TAKS-required and required to pass the TAKS inorder to matriculate to the next grade.

I believe, and I believe most teaches would agree with me, that morals begin at home and are best taught by example and not by a teach-and-test method. I live in what is considered to be an "economically depressed" area and the attitudes of a good number of our students is abysmal at best, reflecting the attitudes of their own unemployed, welfare-recipient parent(s). Until parents' attitudes and values change, neither will the children's, and they are the ones who will suffer.