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

Part of the original post by Anon.

Posted By: May have been removed on 2005-09-02
In Reply to: Continued (hit enter too soon) - American Woman

If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.


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

Did you post this on Gab board: I think I'm going crazy - need some insight (long) - anon..nm
nm
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.

You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.

Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.

And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.

They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).

So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.


Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated

is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied.  He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.


John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?


Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.


People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.


I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.

As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.


My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html

By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots

http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/


Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.

http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html


The original Pledge of Allegiance


I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.


On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.


At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.


It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!


In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.


I agree with part of your post.

I believe most people WANT socialism because they think it will save them and protect them from all the bad things in the world. Just think, free healthcare, free gas, free homes.


I could go on and on, but I have to leave. Pooch wants to go play in the garage. If she doesn't get her way, she starts moaning and groaning.


A question about the religion part of your post.
In an attempt to verify your claim that the ACLU will go to court against a Christian who wants to wear a cross, I essentially found myself on a dead-end wild goose chase. I found a number of ACLU cases challenging the display of cross on public land (one of the more fascinating ones described below) and on various other forms of displays, but could not find a case challenging an individual's right to wear a cross. Could you please cite the case you are referring to?

I also am interested to know more about your protest of discrimination against Christians "going nowhere near the white house." Yes, our founding fathers were Christian, but their wisdom of separating church and state in the First Amendment has been addressed already this morning in a separate post. Nobody is lumping all Christians into the same barrel.

Our other First Amendment guaranteed right ensures freedom of speech for all individuals, including the ones who take issue with the more extreme forms of politicized Christianity, just as you take issue with the extreme politicized forms of Islam. It is fair if those people speak out regarding their desire to see constitutional principles upheld in the face of what they perceive to be theocratic creep and crawl into mainstream politics, particularly where universal laws are at issue. In terms of sharing the gospel, most definitely you have that same freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment, as do those who find it exceedingly intrusive and offensive.

I am wondering if you somehow have confused a person's body with an 822-foot mountain top? Is this the ACLU case you refer to?

Mount Soledad Cross controversy court battle from 1989 to present day. The cross, 43 feet tall from base to tip, sits atop the highest peak (822 feet) in San Diego (72 feet above sea level), making it a highly visible landmark. The history of the court battle is really quite fascinating. Here is it in a nutshell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy

Since 1989, the Mt. Soledad Cross has been involved in a continuous litigation regarding its legal status. According to the interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and No Preference Clause of the California Constitution by the opponents of the cross, it is illegal to display a religious symbol, such as a Christian cross, on public land, as it demonstrates preference to a specific religion and thus violates the separation of church and state. Judges have sided with plaintiffs on multiple occasions and ruled that the cross is illegal and has to be removed or sold to the highest bidder. Defenders of the cross have explored several opportunities to circumvent judges' decisions. In the most recent development, the land under the cross was transferred to the federal government. Critics of the cross allege that, even if the transfer itself is legal, it does not solve the fundamental problem (the cross is no more legal on federal land than on city or state land). The latest decision was rendered July 31, 2008, with appeal required to be filed within 60 days of the decision.

This post part of which I have copied from the conservative board is over the line

Well, gotta tell ya all..I have tried to take the conservative posts and laugh about them..but, however, being a descendant of the Holocaust, having lost great-great family members and still having a beloved friend who was a survivor, with tattoos on her arms and memories to tell all...I TOTALLY STRIKE OUT AT THIS POST..CALLING ME A NAZI IS THE MOST WORSE THING ANYONE COULD CALL ME..AND IM AM MOST DEFINITELY GOING TO CONTACT THE MONITOR AND ADMINISTRATOR..THIS IS UNCALLED FOR..THIS ATTACK IS IGNORANT..These ignorant people throw around genocide and nazi and THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY ARE EVEN POSTING ABOUT..


 **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.**


I agree, corrected myself in a post below. I shouldn't have added that part as a factor nm
x
Hey Anon!

LOL.  I was greeted by helloinfidels, with the following, most of which I can copy and paste below!  Cracked me up because I have no clue how this person pegged me as a conservitive.  (For a brief second, I thought I was back here!)  I like Maher's site much better than here.  There's more to read, and some of the conservatives are nicer in their approach, they don't stalk and attack, and I find I can learn a lot from people who present ideas in an intelligent way.  What's your handle there, and where do you hang out the most?  I'll be looking for you.


Welcome fellow conservitive. Let me just fill you in on a couple of rules to follow on this message board. Make sure you support the president and speak kindly about america. We on this message board do not accept any negative liberal talk! I know i can speak for all people on this message board when i say that all liberals can go and f*** themselves!


Another GREAT thing they have there that they SHOULD have here:  An IGNORE button!!!!


Sorry, anon....
I used the first person, and I should not have. Old habits die hard. I did not mean to personalize the comments directly at you. Wrong, wrong...sorry. :(
Dear Anon. SM
This site is no more being hijacked than the conservative board was some time back.  Most of us have stayed on one board or the other.  sm has offered to stay on the conservative board from now on, but was told she need not.  Which is it, pray tell?  As for me, I post here rarely and usually in respons to something quite specific.  After this post, I will not venture here again.  I do indeed hope this makes you all happy.
Anon's version is better.

Hi anon....just a couple of thoughts....
right or wrong, there are more people in this country who do not consider themselves "citizens of the world," having never been outside our borders and have no desire to do so. That does not make them bad or wrong. And they have a mistrust of someone who says he is a citizen of the world who is married to a woman who was never proud of the US in her adult life until her husband ran for President. That does not make them bad people either. That is just the way they feel. I am one of those people. I have never traveled outside the US and have no desire to. I do not call myself a citizen of the world. If you want to, if anyone wants to, that is fine by me. However, if someone is running for President of the United States, to lead our country, I personally...and again, a personal feeling of my own, feel that he should be here in this country, talking to Americans about what he wants to do for this country, here. There is plenty of time, if and when he gets the job, to go abroad and talk to the other leaders, as Presidents have done before him. I think it smacks of a little arrogance that he chose to do this, but again...that is MY perception. And the fact that one of his senior advisors said to the press corp on the plane on this trip in a briefing"When the President of the United States goes..." and had to be reminded that Obama did not have the job yet...well, kinda sealed it for me. I just don't trust the man. I don't think he has this country's best interests at heart...because he and I disagree about what that is.

I whole-heartedly agree about the campaign managers. Y'know, anon, I just wish we could have a debate where we inject both of them with truth serum before they start, and gag all their advisors until all questions had been answered, and let regular folks like us ask the questions. Only THEN will we know the truth. LOL. Have a great day!
Anon, you are SO totally wrong in what you said.
nm
There is a simple answer to that, anon....
again, when you think something has been distorted or made up, say so. I for one, when I am proven wrong on something I have posted as fact and not opinion, I have apologized and owned up to it. I am assuming I am one of the ones you are talking about, so please...if I post something as fact (not opinion) and you prove to me it is distroted or made up, I will certainly own up to it. Thanks.
only part saved was the ignorant part
You can read the whole article.  This quote was saved to show what she said that was so stupid.
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking.  If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.

I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well.  I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards. 
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
the original settlers

She said, and I quote "the original settlers"


Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
The only mandated CS in his original
platform (Blueprint for Change) was for the Opportunity Tax Credit for college students to receive the $4000 college tuition assistance. It states he has a goal for middle school and high school students to do 50 hours, but it never says it is required. (I printed this out during the primary, so it may be out of date.)
FYI, it's not a forgery. It's the original one
on file at the courthouse. I WELCOME a Supreme Court decision so this nonsense will end, although I'm sure then the tin-foil-hatters will swear the current republican-biased Supreme Court was in on the scam too... LOL.
And yet another one makes the Original

For the original package...(sm)
but unsure if it will help as it stands.  The popularity of the against vote for the bill has been fascilitated by some keen advertising on the pub side.  I'm hoping Obama will call the pubs out on tonight's address and point out exactly what it is that pubs want in the bill (more tax breaks for the wealthy that we can't afford), and in particular, which pubs want it.  If he does that keep your eye on the polls.  People will be outraged.
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
original message regarded

the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media.  Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive?  you can't have it both ways.


 


Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.

oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Oldtimer was the original poster
You would have probably gotten that had you not been in such a hurry to jump my post. I have nothing to hide, nothing to get away with and see no real reason to dumb down the phrasology, tone or content of my posts. I respond in kind to to folks who have no real interest in viable political issues, are constantly in attack mode, have pronounced adversions to logic, reason and facts and who haul out the holier-than-thou, pious, elite accusations when trying to avoid any sort of intelligent discourse.

There will always be opposition around who can be as in-your-face as the you choose to be...or not. If I "bother" you somehow, so be it. Right wingers bother me too, but you don't see me going around trying to kick them off the board or telling them they post more than they should.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give respect and get respect. That's the way it works in the grown-up world. It's your choice.
I took the original poster for observing 9/11 ...sm
to be in the same spirit of both Sen. Obama and McCain, and that was to put aside differences, for one day, and be kind to one another, and not make political statements that are inflammatory to one another. To come together and to be one nation, without division, so to speak, on this of all days.

That's all the original poster was asking for.

We are free to choose how we act, as we wish, you are correct in that.

I choose to post today and be kind. I could post about how I feel about certain candidates, but it is not the day for that.

I choose to remember everyone today, you included, I remember that we are one, as we are all Americans, all New Yorkers, on this of all days.


Maybe you still have your original birth certificate...sm
I sure didn't. When I went to get a passport I had to order a copy from the city where I was born. It was a photocopy. All birth certificate copies come with a seal for authenticity. There are no more "originals filed". Everything is computerized or on microfilm.
and we come back to the original point.
Is it moral to befriend a terrorist?