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

One minute inside, the next outside

Posted By: Corki on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: One more thing about abortion for Obama supporters (sm) - MeMT

My personal opinion is abortion would not be taking a life IF it could be done when it is still just cells (and not organs, limbs, and the like). The problem would be to catch it that quickly.

My thought for those who think it the baby is not "alive" until it is born ... well a couple minutes before it is born, it is still the same baby ... just in a different place. You are still just as alive when you are inside your house as when you are out in public. Same thing.


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

Just think about that for a minute...
Think what that would mean to Americans. Death penality if you do not follow one religion. Hands cut off for stealing. Stoned to death for adultery. Stoned to death or worse for homosexuality. No TV other than state TV. No western music. No abortions. No living together outside marriage. Girls killed by their own families for premarital sex. No divorce. Women in total subjection in a society totally dominated by males. Some of the practices and lifestyles this country has come to accept in the name freedom, whether good or bad, gone in a heartbeat. The scary thing is that a good part of this country will go on thinking that can't happen here...and unfortunately that may be the death knell of America as we know it. I shudder to think. All Christians no matter what denomination need to hit their knees and pray hard that that does not happen to our country, and we need to support our country's efforts in Iraq and support the men and women who are there trying to keep just this thing from happening. We are losing the will to fight, and in so doing are rolling onto our backs to expose our belly to the wolves. Sorry to be so graphic, but that is about what it amounts to. Some things ARE worth fighting for. God bless us all!
don't believe it for a minute

This man has changed his mind (that's a nice way of saying he lies) as much as Biden did in the debate last PM.  Keep in mind that literally anything that is "gov't-sponsored" is actually YOU sponsored.  You take home less money (less than you do now, that's for sure), you hand over even more control to "the gov't," etc.


If nothing else, look how everything "the gov't" does gets more screwed up every time "they" touch it.  The bailout they just signed had thousands of pages added to it.  That's the name of that tune.  Hope this helps. 


Incidentally, I don't give anyone a free pass.  That's something I've never understood.


Let us for a minute consider this

in a different way.


Let us say that your son or daughter are in school.  They are very good students.  They do their homework, study, and get good grades.  In fact, they get an A.  However, another little girl or boy didn't do so well in class.  Instead...they got a D.  Now an A is above average and a D is below average as I'm sure all of you aware of.  So the A student can afford to lose part of their grade right because they are above average.  So let us say that we take a bit of the A grade to up the unfortunate child who received a D so that way they get a C.  That would make the unfortunate child have an average grade.  Now the child earning the A but having it taken away is very upset.  They worked so hard for that A but because others felt she could afford to give up part of her A so another child could bring a below average grade up to an average grade would make the whole school a happy place because everyone would be average.  No one would be below average.  But the A student gets very down and stops trying because what is the point.  The A they earned will be taken away any way.  The D student continues to get below average grades because....hey...no big deal...teacher will just take it from an A student and I'll be average.  No harm done except now the A student is getting lower grades because their hard work has been penalized and they have stopped trying.


If this were happening in our school systems each and every one of us would have an absolute fit but that is exactly what Barrack Obama is wanting to do to us.  Instead he is doing it with our hard-earned money. 


Think about this for a minute s/m
Think anchor babies............they are natural born babies aren't they?  You want to see a child of  ILLEGAL ALIEN parents become president?  That would be a fine example of our Constitution since it would give them every right to run for the presidency.  Well, wake up, that is very likely to happen!
Let's look at this a minute

First, $60,000 per year is not exactly in the wealthy category but even in this day it is or should be enough to pay for the necessities with some money left over.


Do I pay for everything with cash?  You betcha!  We have done so for years while we scrimped and saved to pay off the mortgage, get the cars paid off, etc.  Then that money instead of going into finer living went into savings.  We still live frugally because we fully expect that we will have to help our kids who are not yet old enough to have followed our advice...I might add that of 4 only 1 (Joe the real life plumber) has the desire to follow in our footsteps.  People these days want bigger houses, newer cars, more "stuff" to keep up with the Jones and have kept buying what they can't afford...when their credit runs out then what?  Bankruptcy?  Bush pretty well took that option off the table.  I fully expect debtor's prison to be the next thing on the agenda.


Use your head.  If the middle class does well everyone does well.  Where's the middle class now?  But the greed is still there and that includes greedy people as well as greedy big business.


As for the rebates.....I was NOT in favor of the rebates and said they would do no good........they didn't.  Mine went into the mattress and I'd gladly give it back if it would help this economy.  I imagine the majority of people threw money at the credit card bill collectors hoping to stave them off another day or so.  So who benefited from that?


 


This is getting better every minute, MT. You claim to know who's AGAINST you when you can't

even figure out who's WITH you, as evidenced by the little hissy fit above between you and another CON!!!


Please keep posting.  You're getting whackier with each post and revealing yourself for the nut case you truly are!!!


Plus, I'm intrigued by all the different voices in your head who surface at different times.  I guess tonight TM is doing the talking, and TM seems to be even more rude and angry and hateful than you usually are.


Why so angry, MT?  Roberts was confirmed today.  Why aren't you happy?  Or do you just have a terminal case of chronic bitterness, no matter what? Have you ever been nice to ANYONE?


PLEASE keep posting.  You're quite entertaining, even if in a pathetic sort of way.


wait a minute there
if you are wealthy and repub, drug addiction is an ILLNESS.  If you are middle class or poor and perhaps a person of color, it is CRIME.  Get your facts straight.
Not me for a minute!!! Foolish old man. nm
x
There's one born every minute.
You seem to have bought the Dem's propaganda hook, line and sinker. What a sucker.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.
i was lost for a minute. thank you
x
I don't believe this story for one minute!
The "B" carved in this young lady's cheek is more like scratch, and it is backwards. Have you ever looked at writing in a mirror? It's backwards! This young lady may have been mugged, but she scratched the "B" in her cheek all by herself. She is also a college Republican field representative, which makes this story even more fishy and explains her motive for doing this. Talk about stooping low...this is as low as it gets!
Oh now, wait a minute
Isn't it the dems that hate rich old white folks. But, of course, you can't hate rich old black folks, right?

What a hypocrit!
So did anyone watch the 30-minute

Just think of what he spent on that.  That could be your hard-earned dollars at work in his big spending.  2 million bucks per station.  For 30 minutes of the same old stuff. 


Yeah, he's going to cut your taxes after he reverses Bush's tax cuts.  You will end up paying more than you do now, that is for sure. 


I wonder where he was sitting in the ad?  It looked like it could have been.....the Oval Office....


 


Wait a minute!!!!
So now it's unpatriotic to bash the president? Seriously?
Wait a minute now
I have always been a Republican, but I have to say I am very disappointed by what I see.  The news is getting worse and worse everyday because we have 24/7 news!  Everyone under the sun has a 1 hour news show where they have to talk about something and the economy is what they focus on.  I never see any good news anymore.  It seems they are more worried about what Fox is saying and Fox is worried about what so-and-so said on another station.  A bunch of little boys trying to see who has the bigger penis (sorry, but true).  So it is an all out slamming war.  I always thought Republicans/Conservatives were patriotic - oh not so now!!  They are the ones throwing the tantrum and being negative about EVERYTHING!   They aren't supporting the president or who is in charge.   Where is the hope?  Where is the proud American attitude?  The dems won, it's their turn, stop listening to the "doom" messages and wait to see what happens.  GEEZ!   Like I said, I am a Repubican, and I will accept this plan for the economy and I will support my president.  Just because most of the plans don't improve my life, doesn't mean they don't improve the life of someone else who deserves it and our country.  Call me crazy, but I still believe in supporting my country no matter what because, well, I like living here.  Talk about what you believe in and disagree with, but quit saying we are going down the drain.  That's being a little dramatic! 
wait one minute
I do not believe homosexuality to be a "disability." don't go twisting my words. that is not what I said and you know it.
Now wait a minute
You cannot lump all republicans in with one moron like that. You're stereotyping.

Some of our government's biggest problems is that the Democrats have become liberals (our last true Dem was Kennedy) and the Republican party seems to have forgotten what it is supposed to stand for. Reagan, IMO, was our last true Republican prez. The president should be a highly respected position and the media should not be asking questions like "do you wear boxers or briefs?" Thanks to that, I have images of Clinton in his underwear and it makes me want to sear out my corneas.

Our country has lost a lot of its values. There's no excuse for what that woman did and it was especially stupid for her to E-mail it ("Oh, lookey at the stupid thing I just did") but please don't lump us all together.

My only biased bones in my body are toward the terrorists who have attacked our country. And even with that, I pray to God to help me, because I don't want to dislike anyone.
Wow....whew. The coldness of that hit me for a minute....

Okay, I get it.  The wholesale slaughter of babies does not bother you.  You have no care for them whatsoever.  Better they are sliced and diced than to add to the population problem.  What if some of them were serial killers?  Sheesh.  What if some of the dead Iraqis were going to be terrorists?  Good grief!


Talk about oversimplification.  Are you saying that every war that has been fought was for naught and should not have been fought?  Is that your stand?  Or is it just Iraq you are concerned about?  I have asked numerous times and you have never answered.  Should we never for any reason go to war? 


Personally I think Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned, because it is unconstitutional on its face.  It was enacted by activist judges overturning a state law ad taking it nationwide, which they have no right to do.  Only Congress at state or local level can enact law.  For that reason alone it should be overturned.   Then, if individual states want to change/stop/whatever abortion law they should be able to do it.  We are talking about killing of human beings here.  You can shoot someone in your house who is a danger to you in some states and face jail time for it...yet we slice and dice innocent babies in the womb who are defenseless and say no harm, no foul?  How contradictory is that may I ask?  And when, oh when, can we just ask people to show more responsibility?  With all the birth control methods there are available, we should not be seeing half a million abortions a year that are second, third, and fourth abortions.  That is just nuts.  And, though it probably does not matter a hoot to you, my work is done with women who find themselves in a situation where a choice has to be made, and work with organizations who offer a different choice.   I would like to change minds because that is where the true answer is.


All that being said, my active work is not going toward overturning Roe v Wade, though it should be for the reasons stated above.  Judges need to be reined in.  At least then if people are going to condone abortion (pro choice) then let them go to the polls and put their vote where their mouth is, so that we know the true will of the people.  If, as you say, over half the country does agree that abortion should be legal, that thought should not scare you and I don't know why it does.  And if abortion remained the law of the land, then I would continue the work I am doing, and that is trying to change minds and hearts, and give women in that situation a choice different from abortion.  Because I do believe in following the law of the land.  Hence, no picketing of abortion clinics, no bombings, no shooting doctors, no demonizing women in that situation.  I want to offer a different choice, to give them time to think about what they are doing and the long-reaching effects.  And I see nothing wrong with that.  If a woman decides to go ahead with an abortion, she is certainly able to do so and receives no condemnation from us.  It saddens us, of course.  But the women/girls we work with are not sent away with ridicule and condemnation and if they return later with regret they are welcomed and counseled.  And we see a fair amount of those as well.  And, wonderfully, we are beginning to see more women making a choice for life, whether keeping the child herself or choosing adoption.  I realize on the national level it is a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket...but one life saved, to me, is worth it.  I cannot concentrate on the many who are lost, or I would never get anything done.  I have to concentrate on the ones saved.


The real purpose of an abortion law is to encourage responsibility, because obviously something is haywire when half a million abortions a year are repeat abortions.  If that is not using abortion as birth control, kindly tell me what is.


And as a final note....the June Cleaver thing is a really old chestnut.  You can't tell me that 1.2 million women a year would turn into horrible mothers and the child would be better off dead than alive with their mothers.  There are far more success stories than not, and there are many, many families looking to adopt newborns.    There are many stories of girls/women who make that hard choice, and instead of the their lives being ruined, the child is the impetus for change in their lives.  The good stories far outweigh the bad.  And like I said...I am a glass half full kind of person.  If we can save even a portion of those 1.2 million lives, then I believe the efforts are worth it.  I certainly cannot just stand by and act like it does not matter to me.  Because it does.


We are never going to agree on this subject.  You can't understand why I would want to save babies and still think defending this country is okay, and I can't understand how you feel such empathy for casualties of war and feel none for aborted babies.  I certainly feel empathy for casualties of war.  However, I feel that war is sometimes necessary.  I have no trouble with that decision.  And I cannot equate the two...abortion and war.  And I don't know how you can. 


I personally don't make the decision to go to war.  You don't personally make the decision to get an abortion.  Either way, people die, although the numbers dying are much higher on the one side.  And, frankly, I don't think even with the war the number of dead Iraqis has caught up to what Saddam did when he was in power.  And that was not collateral damage, that was planned wholesale murder...very similar to abortion.  Gas them all, men women and children, defenseless and unable to fight back.  Line them up on the side of a pit, shoot them all, cover them up.  Torture, beheading.  Slice and dice, partially born, suck their brains out.  There is a similarity.  Murder.  Barbarism.  Same result.  Dead human beings.  When all is said and done, if a free Iraq emerges and that sort of behavior does not occur again, then I am willing to bet the Iraqis, down the road, will believe that it was worth it.  They thought so when they were waving American flags and hugging soldiers and toppling Saddam statues.   Just like we believed after the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, horrible and bloody though they were, were worth it. 


I sleep well at night and am comfortable with my decisions.  I assume you do too. So at least I will agree to disagree.


:)


Forgotten the minute you took you last best shot.
nm
Don't know. It was just a 1 minute report on the news (nm)
nm
Wait a minute...we don't need GW, cuz we have McSAME!!!
Hurray, hurray!!!!! We will all be saved. Our wallets will get fat. Interest rates will go down. We'll get to see other parts of the world as we are fighting wars in Russia, Iran and Korea on our big screen HD TVs - right in the comfort of our own living rooms!!!! Our veterans will continue killing themselves (so let's ban abortion so we can create a whole new batch of cannon fodder). I am just GIDDY with excitement. It's going to be a whole NEW WORLD!!! Maybe we'll even get to see some action on our own turf since our military is shattered. Onward Christian Soldiers........
Wait a minute what about the guy? Condoms are...sm
easily accessible to anyone.
Wait a minute. What's that I see trailing behind me?
Well, I suwannee, what d'ya know about that.
Wow. List growing by the minute.
by hate mail after daring to have his own opinion and is leaving the National Review, the magazine founded by his dad. So much for family tradition.
Whoa, wait just 1 minute s/m

My husband gets a pretty good retirement check each month so I would argue they didn't QUITE steal all the pension money.


Wait a minute while I get out my sickness bag
"He's doing it simply for the love of his country". On pulleese.

Try, power, ambition, money, control, racial motives, or any other number of reasons.

As much as I didn't like McCain (and did not vote for him), he also said he was running for the love of his country and because he cared about the people. If he would have won would you have said "bless him"?

No politician runs for office because they love their country. They run for the sheer money and power it brings them.
Let's jump over to reality for a minute....(sm)
What Obama is doing is rescinding the Bush bill.  He's not putting out a new law that MAKES people do procedures they consider unethical.  So basically if you work in the medical field and you didn't do abortions before this bill, chances are that noone is going to MAKE you do them in the future.  I think Bush's bill was more targeted towards support services -- for example people who work at a pharmacy who don't believe in the morning after pill.  The point I get from all this is that if you don't want to do abortions, don't work in an abortion clinic.  The way you guys are describing it, I could make an orthodontist do brain surgery.  Let's try reality for a while.
No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one....
nm
Might find the 15 minute video of Palin
nm
Just wait a minute. The flags were reported
nm
I'd rather eat glass than spend a single minute
nm
Now dagnabit, wait just a doggone minute!!!
Why on earth would you think WORKING Democrats would want to support freeloaders any more than working Republicans??  Uterly ridiculous!
Forget abortion for a minute.....people...
presume to tell other people that stealing is wrong...that murder of anyone else is wrong...that any multitude of things are wrong (all the laws on the books). But in the case of abortion, don't presume to tell anyone else what they should believe. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.... :-) Have a good day, GP!
Last minute house keeping by Bush & Co.

It’s something of a tradition– administrations using their final weeks in power to ram through a slew of federal regulations. With the election grabbing the headlines, outgoing federal bureaucrats quietly propose and finalize rules that can affect the health and safety of millions.


The Bush administration has followed this tradition and expanded it. Up to 90 proposed regulations could be finalized before President George W. Bush leaves office Jan. 20. If adopted, these rules could weaken workplace safety protections, allow local police to spy in the “war on terror” and make it easier for federal agencies to ignore the Endangered Species Act.


What’s more, the administration has accelerated the rule-making process to ensure that the changes it wants will be finalized by Nov. 22.


That’s a key date, Nov. 22. It is 60 days before the next administration takes control — and most federal rules go into effect 60 days after they have been finalized. It would be a major bureaucratic undertaking for the Obama administration to reverse federal rules already in effect.


“The Bush administration has thought through last-minute regulations much more than past administrations,” said Rick Melberth, director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that tracks federal regulations. “They’ve said, ‘Let’s not only get them finalized; let’s get them in effect.’”


So what are the new rules?


The Washington Independent has highlighted five regulations notable for their potential effect and the way they slipped through the regulatory process. Four could to be finalized by Nov. 22. One was already — on Election Day.


1) The Dept. of Labor proposed a regulation Aug. 30 that changes how workplace safety standards are met. Labor experts contend that the administration, which previously issued only one new workplace safety standard and that under court order, is trying to make it a bureaucratic nightmare for future administrations to make workplace safety rules.


Here’s what it would do:


Currently, if the Occupational Safety and Health Admin. or the Mine Health and Safety Admin. want to introduce a new safety standard on, say, the level of exposure to toxic chemicals, it issues what is called a notice of proposed rule-making. This notice is published in the Federal Register and then debated by labor, business and relevant federal agencies.


The new regulation would add an “advanced notice of proposed rule-making,” meaning OSHA and MSHA would have prove that, say, the said chemical was seriously harming workers.


This would open the door for industry to challenge the validity of the risk assessment and then, if necessary, the actual safety standard that may come from that risk assessment.


“The purpose of this sort of rule is to require agencies to spend more time on a regulation which gives them less of a chance to actually regulate,” said David Michaels, a professor of workplace safety at George Washington University, “You’re adding at least a year, maybe two years, to the process.”


The regulation has not been finalized.


2) The administration proposed a rule that changes the employer-employee relationship laid out in the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.


Here’s what it would do:


The Family and Medical Leave Act says that employers must give their workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they are sick or need to take care of a family member or newborn. The employer’s health-care staff can check the legitimacy of the family or medical leave claim with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider.


The proposed regulation would allow the employer to directly speak with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider. The employer could also ask employees to provide more medical documentation of their conditions.


Why such a rule — which may threaten an employee’s privacy– is needed is unclear. The only study the Labor Dept. has done on the act was in 2000. The department collected comments from employers before issuing the proposed regulation, but a report analyzing the comments was never issued.


The regulation also would gives employees the right to waive their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, making it the first national labor law to be optional. A worker, for instance, cannot waive his right to earn a minimum wage or get paid more for overtime.


The regulation was finalized on Election Day.


3) The Dept. of Health and Human Services proposed a rule Sept. 26 that would expand the reasons that physicians or health care entities could decline to provide any procedure to include moral and religious grounds. The language of the regulation says the department hopes to correct “an attitude toward the health-care profession that health-care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination.”


Here’s what it would do:


The rule change seems to apply to abortion. But they are already several rules that say physicians or health-care entities can deny an abortion request. Some women’s health advocates contend that the proposed regulation’s broad language is meant to increase the number of physicians who not only don’t provide abortions but don’t provide contraception.


“Contraception is certainly the target of this rule,” contends Marylin Keefe, director for Reproductive Health at the National Partnership for Women and Families. “The moral and religious objections of health-care workers are now starting to take precedence over patients.”


The regulation is notable for another reason. A rule involving an employee’s religious rights must be referred to the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, yet the commission was never told of this proposed regulation.


A bureaucratic battled erupted when EEOC’s legal counsel, Reed Russell, wrote a regulation comment (pdf) blasting both the substance of the proposed rule and its disregard for the rule-making process.


The regulation has not been finalized.


4) On July 31, the Justice Dept. proposed a regulation that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect “intelligence” information on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to a criminal matter.


“This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat,” said Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein in a statement.


Critics say it could infringe on civil liberties.


Here’s what it would do:


“It expands local law enforcement’s ability to investigate criminal activity that it deems suspicious,” said Melberth of OMB Watch. “But what’s suspicious to you may not be suspicious to me. They could be investigating community organizations they think are two or three steps away from a terrorist group.”


The regulation has not been finalized.


5) Before a federal agency approves any construction project– anything from building a dam to a post office — government officials must consult the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These two agencies enforce the Endangered Species Act, and they can veto any project that adversely affects an animal on the endangered species list.


Here’s what it would do:


A regulation proposed by the Interior Dept. Aug. 12 would end this approval process. “It destroys a system of checks and balances that have been in place for two decades,” claimed Bob Davison, senior scientist at Defenders of the Wildlife. “[A federal agency] wants to go forward with a project that [it wants] to do. So you need an independent agency to look at the decision.”


Davison is not the only conservation advocate up in arms. The Interior Dept. has received 200,000 public comments, which may affect the final rule.


Or not — the department shortened the comment period from 60 to 30 days in its effort to get the regulation finalized.


In May, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten vowed that the administration would propose no regulations after June 1. He and White House spokesman Tony Fratto have repeatedly stated their contempt for what they call “midnight regulations.”


Yet with the exception of the Family and Medical Leave changes, each of these regulations were proposed after June 1. And if finalized, they will effect worker’s safety, women’s health-care choices, local police powers and endangered species.


“It was a pretty resounding election,” said Keefe of the National Partnership for Women and Families. “But this administration acts like it still has a mandate.”


Well sugar, it becomes anti-Semitic the minute

you use Hitler to illustrate your point.  This "occupation" you speak if simply a myth created and perpetuated by the Palestinians.  Aside from the history I posted below, allow me to post more on the subject of "occupation." 


The Jewish perspective on Palestine was that with proper development there would be room for all. Many of the early settlers were Labor Zionists and they identified with the poor Arab fellahin. In 1920, David Ben Gurion (who would later declare the State of Israel and become its first Prime Minister) stated: "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them... Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

Thus the focus was on the purchase of uncultivated lands, often swamps or barren sand dunes, and with no tenants (e.g. the Hula valley, Tel Aviv).

In 1930, John Hope Simpson (chair of the Hope Simpson Commission) noted that Jews "paid high prices for land, and in addition they paid to certain occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." (P. 51, Hope Simpson report)


The next year, after Arab cries about being dispossessed from their land, Lewis French led a British effort to provide land to Arabs that had been displaced. Of the 3,000 applications received, 80% were determined to be invalid. Ultimately, only about 100 landless Arabs were offered alternative plots. (from French's Supplementary Report submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission.)

In 1936 the Peel Commission arrived on the scene. From its PRC report (p. 242): "much of the land now carrying orange groves were sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased.... there was at the time... little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."

The vast majority of Jewish owned lands had been uncultivated, often thought to be uncultivatable. Jews, who comprised roughly a third of the population, only held 11% of the land that was defined as "arable." The Peel Commission found that any land shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population."

This increase far exceeded population increases in neighboring countries and, not surprisingly, took place in areas where development by Jews was at work. While Jewish immigration was regulated, restricted, and at times totally forbidden by the British, scores of thousands of Arabs crossed into Palestine from miles and miles of poorly patrolled land borders.


So this was the glorious country of Palestine that the Palestinians (most of them great, great grandchildren of those who live there now) talk about. Most of their ancestors were immigrants, brought to Palestine between WWI and II by the British at the request of the other Arab countries who promised them cheap oil if they helped. They did.  In the meantime, Jews had started settling there and building up the land.

The myth that the area was thriving prior to Jewish development is false.  It had its moments, but alternated between desert and malaria infested swamps.  So much for the claim that the land had been held, or at least worked if not owned by a family, for "generations." Plots were changed "annually."

Thus, while most people who don't know the history of Israel, think Jews stole the land, they are very much mistaken. It was purchased. Israeli land was developed into orange groves from swamps, from sand dunes into cities. And now, the Palestinians who hadn't the least interest in that land until the Jews developed it. wanted it. While the Israeli population increased slowly, the Arab population increased ten-fold both from immigration and very large families huddled into poor neighborhoods. Instead of building infrastructure, US aid was pocketed by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to increase their bank accounts and to wage wars.

Arafat himself was no Palestinian. Like most Palestinians he was also an immigrant; an Egyptian. After the UN partitioned Palestine, and declared Israel a state, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, armed to the teeth, declared war on Israel. Though Israel had few weapons, and no help from any other country, they won the 1948 War of Independence. The Arabs have waged 5 wars on Israel, and lost all of them. In addition there have been many multi-terrorist attacks. Though won in bloody battles, Israel was forced to return the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, the Sinai and other territories which they gained with their lives in wars that the Arabs started.


That's the story. Most of you know the rest. The Intifada, the suicide bombers, the constant attacks of Arabs on Israeli settlements, the canons from the Golan Heights, which, rained down on Jewish kibbutzes, (farms) and the theft of all the money supplied by the US to Palestine which enriched Arafat's pockets and is now in the hands of his young late wife and a Swiss bank. To blind the people as to what he was doing (stealing American money) Arafat ( a terrorist himself who in his younger days blew up Jewish children's school buses) encouraged Arab Palestinians to terrorize the Israelis. Arafat continued his terrorism from Jordan and Lebanon (two Arab countries), and was kicked out of both for causing anarchy and chaos. He returned to Palestine, and more terrorist groups formed and developed, most under his directive.

Palestinian groups that support and carry out acts of political violence include Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, - General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Abu Nidal Organization, all of which are officially listed as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Until 1993, the PLO was also listed as a terrorist group, but in 1988 Arafat renounced violence. (duh) Didn't happen. The PLO Charter's full text of this infamous document negates Israel's right to exist and calls for its destruction through violence. Peace Watch has explained, the PLO's vote on April 24, 1996 did not satisfy its legal obligation to amend the charter.

Terrorism was picked up by other Arab countries. Now it goes on around the Arab world.



hang on a minute? WE'LL get paid less or lose jobs.
nm
Condi lies through her teeth in her 1-minute Gaza statement.

"Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage "ever since their illegal coup" against the forces of (Palestinian Authority) President Mahmoud Abbas."  In the AP report, they attempted to scour this lie by stating that Rice pinned the blame for the violence on Hamas, the Islamist Resitance Movement that "seized power" in Gaza in June 2007 after "ousting" the US-backed Palestinian Authority of Mahmud Abbas.  Neither statement even remotely resembles the truth. 


Hamas won control of 28 municipalities in both the West Bank and Gaza in the municipal elections of 2005, including control in the West Bank's largest cities (Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah and East Jerusalem).   They achieved a stunning victory in the legislative elections in 2006,  which yielded a yielded a 78% voter turnout.  Hamas won 76 out of 132 seats on the Legislative Council.  Factoring in the 4 seats won by independents who support Hamas, they seized 80 seats, giving them control of 60.6% of the council.  In other words, they did BETTER than the US democrats in 2008. 


Hamas benefited in the election from the fractures in the secular, US-backed (kiss of death) Fatah party of Mahmoud Abbas.  Fierce in-fighting between Hamas and Fatah factions erupted in the election aftermath.  Israel and the US (along with Egypt) immediately tried to undermine Hamas and force them from power, even going so far as to arm and train Fatah for a war with Hamas!  They hatched a plot that involved smuggling US arms for Fatah strongholds in Gaza through a suddenly porous Egyptian border with Israel's blessing.   


As with countless other ill-advised US attempts to rearrange the political landscape in the Middle East, this stunt backfired all over the place.  When this engineered conflict erupted later in the summer, Fatah and Hamas officers and leaders (including Abbas) were targeted by their respective militia's opponents.  Things got really nasty and Abbas HIMSELF dissolved the Palestinian-Hamas unity government, declared a state of emergency, tried to dismiss the prime minister and declared himself ruler of Gaza by presidential decree.  Can you say US-backed coup?  Of course, this went over like a lead balloon with the newly elected Hamas leadership.


Ultimately, this led to the current division of government between Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Palestinian National Authority), who the US and EU normalized relations with and began sending direct aid.  Abbas relocated to the West Bank and is still the President of the Palestinian National Authority.  In the meantime, he has found it increasingly more difficult to sustain the more moderate status quo support of US-brokered peace initiatives with Israel in view of the absence of such during Bush's second term.  He has announced he will not run for office again at the end of his current term.  In May 2008, he stated he would resign if Condi's impotent so-called peace talks did not produce results within 6 months.  In July, he spoke not only of resigning, but also of dismantling the Palestinian Authority all together. 


As a footnote, Gaza is held hostage by Israel occupation of Palestine and its 18-month blockade, which Condi failed to mention in her statement this morning, not by their democratically elected representatives. 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/16/israel.comment http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412813,00.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/international/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=d28cff5caa1702fa&hp=&ex=1139979600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0525/p07s02-wome.html


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/14/MNGIPMV3N61.DTL


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article640747.ece


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/806603.html


Sure starting to look like she wasn't fully vetted and chosen last minute as a token female...nm
1
inside

I don't think there's anything wrong with laughing at something that is not only very funny but also happens to be true.  Unfortunately, this Administration hasn't given us very much to smile about.


When I read this, nothing led me to believe that Google has a liberal's brain.  By the way how much DID that "poor schlump" part with, since you seem to have all the answers? 


See inside

From your posting:


"So if you and Chomsky are comfortable with putting every man, woman and child in this country at risk to satisfy whatever beef you have against freedom and democracy, fine.  Your freedom of speech had a most terrible and high price tag.  Something tells me that many of these fine men and women, if they could speak now, would not thank you for your thoughts."


I do not recall stating anything related to your above quote.  As I said, you may have me confused with another poster. 


(Inside)

In the first place, I'd like to say thanks for posting here, and you're welcome here any time.


As far as supplying topics to discuss, YOU seem to be the one who is actually supplying the topics.  Today the Conservative board is a pleasant place to be, and even I felt safe responding to a post in your thread.  The topic was excellent, and nowhere have I seen you attack a poster for his or her opinion. 


You haven't come across as confrontational and hateful.  Unfortunately, to a lot of people, these three have done so.


People can debate without personally attacking a poster that doesn't agree with them.  You seem to have done that.  I hope the Conservative board is able to get more posters like you.  You've made it a comfortable place to be.


(inside)

Chill!  LOL.  Gee, you sure are defensive.  I wonder where that came from!


You are NOT on the conservative board any more, and you don't have to walk on eggshells here (although I seem to have acquired a "fan" who has been following me around on this board, taking swipes at everything I say and just generally being unpleasant and contributing nothing of value to any conversation).  If you read the posts here, it's obvious to see whose agenda it is to discuss and debat and whose agenda is restricted to creating discomfort and attacking.


I thought your post was great, and there wasn't one word or phrase in your post above that would imply any lack of respect for a soldier. 


Some people just can't understand that others support the troops by wanting to keep them alive, honor their lives by only placing those lives in jeopardy when absolutely critical and necessary to protect America.  It's obvious you're not "against" our troops, but instead you're trying to fight FOR THEM while they are fighting for HIM and what I believe in the core of my soul to be his personal grudge war.  I believe more and more people are coming to this realization every day and share your thoughts (and mine), as well.


I come here because I like to see what a few certain posters write.  I've been reading these posters' thoughts for a few weeks now, and I find them to be genuine, original and heartfelt.  (If you have any doubt as to who these people are, just follow the long trail of the hateful responses to their posts.)  It's a source of relaxation to me after I finish working.  I've actually made a list of whose posts aren't worth reading any more because they totally lack value and are designed to do nothing but attack and harass.  I'm no longer willing to feed their addiction to hate, and I simply won't respond to them any more.  Again, if you read the board, I'm sure you will see who I'm referring to and why.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if you are their next target.  They can be very upsetting and cause normal, intelligent people to become very defensive.  They bait posters, and it seems to me if they're ignored, their posts will just stand alone, making their motives very, very clear.  (Just my personal opinion, and I only mention it because I don't want anyone to get to you or chase you away from here because they simply aren't worth it.)


I'm really glad to see you here.  Now I have one more reason to continue visiting this board.  I hope you have a great day! 


P.S.  I noted in your first post you mentioned you're a "military brat."  I'd just like to personally thank you and your family for the sacrifices you made for your country and for me as one of its citizens!


Inside.

I'm posting the entire post, since I'm not sure if I copied the link correctly.  It was posted by vs, followed by additional attacks on gt and Brunson complaining of the *bog of eternal stench* that she claims *tends to drift on over here* on the Conservative Board, after nobody from the Liberal Board has bothered them.  Not once.


This is the post on the Conservative Board from vs, but it's not the only objectionable one.


Sorry to see you go





[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups]      [Politics] --> [Conservatives]


Posted By: vs on 2005-11-28,
In Reply to: I agree with you, MT. SM - Brunson

I understand why though. It's a darn shame that one or two people make this an intolerable place for everyone. Well, if the post count goes down on the boards then maybe they will revisit their policies. At least on these boards the two-initialed Nazi is allowed get away with her genocide of anything conservative, but that's not helping the post count on the board at all.

BTW, I went to the Extremely Politics board, and only a person with a self-esteem death wish would dare post there. I can see why the two-initialed Nazi likes it there. She's free to practice her hate. It's not a place I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole.


http://www.forumatrix.com/ads/frame.cgi?action=main&target=www.forumatrix.com/Channels


See inside. SM

Yes, forgiveness does mean that we have to realize our sins and confess them.   But, unless you are either George Bush himself, his pastor, or his God, how do you know he hasn't?  That is conjecture on your part.  None of us knows what has transpired between this man and his God.  I realize what I am saying will not be popular here, but I don't see a whole lot of Christianity in what I am seeing. Quoting from written sources is not addressing the fact that you are sitting in judgement of someone who is not you.  We aren't supposed to do that.  I hope you all have a blessed Sunday. I am off to church and will certainly pray that God releases from your hearts the hatred you carry.  


See inside. sm

Here is some more from the conference.  So shines a light in a sometimes dim world.    


The sanctity and infinite worth of every human being is a quintessential Jewish value, grounded in the biblical notion that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Against this background, it is ironic and vexatious for many pro–life activists that American Jews tend to line up on the pro–choice side in the struggle over abortion. Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life, a conference held November 12 in Washington, D.C., brought together a hundred or so Jews who are troubled by the Jewish community’s stance toward the unborn, particularly concerning the gruesome late–term procedure known as partial–birth abortion.  The morning session consisted of panel presentations by three Orthodox Jews and a maverick Reform rabbi. Marshall Breger, a law professor and political writer, lamented the fact that Jews support abortion rights more than any religious or ethnic group: they are consistently 15 to 20 percent above the norm, he said, even when controlling for various factors such as religious belief or unbelief, political ideology, social class, etc. He attributed this support, in part, to fears that governmental restrictions on abortion would abridge personal autonomy and impose Christian religious standards on Jewish life. He said that gray areas in Jewish law—its combination of silence and ambiguity regarding the fetus’ status, its handful of exceptional situations allowing abortion—have confused Jews about the permissibility of abortion in general.


Barry Freundel, an Orthodox rabbi from Georgetown, seconded Breger’s sociological account of Jewish fears about abortion as being symbolic of the wider Jewish culture clash with conservative Christian movements. It’s hard to have a conversation about abortion, he said, that doesn’t become a conversation about something else. Even among his own Orthodox congregants, Freundel said, his pro–life preaching is treated as the rabbi getting up on his soapbox again. Nevertheless, he said, he feels obliged to inform them that the absolute license to abort, as practiced in the United States today, is simply impossible to reconcile with traditional Jewish teaching. Judaism, he said, permits abortion in a few limited circumstances, such as to save the life of the mother. He indicated that there is some difference of rabbinic opinion about these circumstances, but stressed that there is no warrant for the overwhelming number of abortions now performed in the U.S. He said that classic Jewish sources really don’t say much about the general moral or metaphysical status of the fetus; but, he added, we have an intuitive response that the fetus is not like an appendix or an in–grown toe nail that can simply be removed at will.


 


Thanks, A.G....(msg inside)
Yes, I figured it out, but I kept thinking surely to goodness he/she would be able to come back with something other condescending mush, but alas, no. The original post could have meant 3 things: (1) he/she was a card-carrying member of the liberal Hate America first club; (2) he/she was championing minorities and their mistreatment 200 years ago, which I find strange when they tell us we can't go back 20 years to support a position; or (3) he/she was comparing what happened with Native Americans and blacks in our past to what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, which is absolutely ridiculous, they are nowhere near the same. Since he/she came back in a post with how he/she *I generally avoid using the racial/ethnic I'm being picked on because of my race/country of origin/gender/you name it cliche also but I'll make an exception in your case.* so I don't much think she champions minorities very much...that rules out #2. I am leaning real hard toward #1, but after some of her later posts, it could well be #3. Or a combination of #1 and #3. I am still waiting for her to give me the name of one of those several countries she said she knew about who did not have any kind of mistreatment of their own citizens at some point in their history. I didn't ask for several, I just asked for one. Have a good day, AG!

9-11 Inside job
You posted a laundry list. Can you support any of that? Where did this come from? What is your source?
Uh oh...LLD :-) see inside
good post.  I agree.      with just one exception...I think there ought to be something included in the program that makes allowances for the cost of living where the recepient lives.  At least some kind of adjustment to level the playing field.  I know someone can get decent housing where I used to live in Oklahoma much more reasonably than they can were I now live in the Northeast...so a bigger chunk out of the $80 grand where I live now than where I used to live.  What do you feel about that?  (not baiting you, really interested)  That is basically why I did not think expanding the program higher up the income ladder was a good idea...that coupled with it needing to be fixed to get illegals out of it and from more illegals getting on it. 
see inside...
1. Yes.

2. Most of them, yes, they have been needed, whether you or I think so or not.

3. Yes, although McCain will not be exactly that same kind of leadership.

Why?

At this point in time, this country is still in need of the Republicans (or what is posing as Republican this election year, as McCain is more of a centrist than true Republican, much to my chagrin). However, he has what we need, at this point in time.

If he's smart, McCain will chose Romney as his VP, as economy is sorely in need of someone who knows what they're doing.

Obama, is not what we need. He cannot fix anything, has not ever run anything, has no real experience, and quite frankly, I have no desire to have a socialistic pseudo-communist president, thank you very much.

My gut feeling tells me that Obama is not presidential material, period, no matter how much the liberal media tries to coronate him and cram him down our throats. (Hillary isn't prez material either, by the way...too much baggage, and "it's my turn" mentality)

I am an Independent, have voted for all parties, at one time or another (even though it may pain me to say I voted for Anderson, lo all those years ago...lol...in hindsight, I should have voted Reagan.)

But believe me, if Obama was the real deal, I would be right there for him, but sadly, he is not. He has made too many fatal errors of late, the most recent was caving to the Clintons and giving them free reign over the DNC. He is not a true leader, in my eyes.

He will not win in November, mark my words.
please see inside
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up
see inside...
Her youngest son is named Trig Paxson Van Palin. After Trig was born, a spokesperson for Palin said that Trig is Norse for true and brave victory. His middle name, Paxson, is the name of an area of Alaska that Palin and her husband think is "one of the most beautiful spots in Alaska," according to a report on MSNBC.

Palin is on record joking that she was naming Trig "Van Palin" after eighties rockers Van Halen.

Bristol, Palin's oldest daughter, 17, means "meeting place by the bridge," according to thinkbabynames.com. Bristol is Old English and is the name of an important town in England, which many US cities were named after as well. It has not ranked in the top 1000 baby names in the US in the last 100 years. Bristol is also the name of a bay in Alaska where Palin's brother-in-law is a fisherman.

I have not found out about the rest yet.