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

Plus - does the Republican party understand the meaning of MAVERICK?

Posted By: CJ on 2008-09-05
In Reply to: obama's comment - Flambe

Agree with you - what did they expect with her zero experience (in foreign policy) AND the fact that she's under investigation?

Re: maverick. There are subtle variations of this word like "eccentric" that could apply to just about anyone, but the central meaning is 'nonconformist'

When you look at someone who has VOTED WITH GEORGE BUSH 90% OF THE time, where do you see 'nonconformist'?

And this from a man who was hammered by Bush when they went toe to toe. Please sir can I have another?

I see REPACKAGED MATERIAL, not 'maverick.'

That said, I have TONS of respect for his POW experience - all the MORE reason for him to NEVER ALLOW AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN WARS BASED ON LIES!!!

What's nonconformist about his support for our current fake war?

He should under the banner of HYPOCRITE, not maverick.


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

But he's the MAVERICK that stands up to his own party - nm
x
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim?  Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim?  Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
THis is not about the Republican party....
it is about socialism. I am a registered Independent, not a Republican. I just don't want a socialist America. What part of that do you not understand?

There is nothing positive about socialism that I can see.

Fear mongering...good grief. I am not fearful, I am angry. That man wants to highjack my country and a good many of my countrymen/women seem all to eager to help him do so. That doesn't make me afraid...it makes me angry.
However, there is nothing I can do about that, except vote for what I want, just like you are apparently going to.

If you get your way, and by the end of his term we are up to our eyeballs in socialism....one thing you can be sure of...I had nothing to do with it.
82 Republican party sex offenders
xyz
The republican party is not in disarray....

...because Obama got elected.  He got elected because the republican party is in disarray.  You got cause and effect reversed.  In this era of political correctness the republican party has been trying to become more *moderate*  and it cost them this election.  By trying to water down the conservative message to *dem lite* they have lost their conservative base. 


I voted, not for McCain, but for Palin and against Obama/Biden.  The idea that Palin would be *one heartbeat away from the presidency* was a plus in my book.  She was the only candidate who made any sense to me.  Did not mince words.  Said what she meant, meant what she said.  Ya' betcha!  No question about her stance on anything. 


Whatever your feelings about the pro/anti-abortion issue, there is no question how Palin felt about it.  She wasn't just against abortion until she and/or her daughter could've used one.  And her own diluted republican party did a number on her, trying to marginalize her so she would be in a poor position to run in four years.


Meanwhile, if Obama's daughter had an unwanted pregnancy he would not want her *punished with a baby.*  What an odd way to put that!  


And please, just to head off the backlash over the abortion issue, that is certainly not the criterion by which I cast my vote, just an example of a candidate taking a stand - even an unpopular one - and sticking to it. 


He made the republican party look ignorant.
nm
Whose reality? The republican party is in the midst of
voters across the board. That's my reality and I have had 8 years to prepare for this moment. My reality has set in just fine. Yours is only just beginning. PS: This just in. Arizona too close to call.
It's not the Republican PARTY painting him as a Muslim.
x
Yes, I would agree Rove is loyal to the Republican party...
he is still not one of my favorite people. And yes, he is brilliant as far as politics are concerned. Frankly, I think he said the stuff about Romney because he figured McCain would not pick him. I really never thought he would. They just don't fit, in my opinion. In a lot of ways, and if you are going to run this country with someone, basic ideas need to be the same. That is why the #1 most liberal senator and the #3 most liberal senator are running on the Dem ticket.

Of course, Rove is toeing the party line now and saying that Palin was a good pick, but still saying he thought it was going to be Romney. So we will see...all I can speak for is myself, but I would not have been nearly AS energized for a Romney pick as I am for Sarah Palin. I would still have supported McCain...but not as enthusiastically.
Sarah Palin was being "groomed" by the republican party.

They wanted to polish her up, dress her in designer duds, and make her into what they wanted her to be.  There were probably stylists who brought clothes to her.  I am sure Sarah Palin did not take time out of the campaign to go shopping at Saks.  Clothing was brought to her, she tried on outfits, decisions were made, and that was that.  She probably have very little to do with what was spent. 


Now, those behind the scenes want to cry foul.  It's just stupid and petty. 


Sarah Palin WAS treated unfairly.  She was thrown into a shark tank.  Her life will never be the same.  It sucks and the Rep. Party needs to quit laying the blame on her for their loss.  Shoulder some responsibility themselves.  McCain was/is a seasoned politician as many Reps were behind the seens.  EVERYONE has done nothing spout how inexperienced and ill-equiped Sarah Palin was and now they want to say it's her fault?!?!!?!?  I find that incredibly cowardly!  She's absolutely right! 


The republicans should be looking at the mess their party is in and figure out what went wrong and how they can rebuild.  Leave Sarah alone!


southern evangelicals are running the republican party and I am

I believe the term you are really using is not "arrogant", but "uppity." 


The Real Face of Satann Coulter and Republican Party
http://satanncoulter666.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
Yup, the Real Republican Party will rise again....new blood is definitely needed, that's for sure

min-Maverick

applied for and accepted per diem travel money from Alaskan tax payers while staying in her own home.  Over $16,000.  Reformer . . .  against wasteful govt spending . . . honest?  you decide.  oink.


 


Sp, the min-maverick

sought federal earmarks to study halibut and baby seals.  (Maybe to determine best size of club to use?)


 


Oh she's a Maverick that's for sure. sm
She'll install a tanning bed in the gov. mans. at the expense of the people, but as mayor she was charging rape victims for their exams.  Now there is a woman we should all look up to.
Maverick
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
Maverick squared

John McCain is indeed adventurous; his selection of an untested running mate whom he had met only once attests to his willingness to take a gamble. Even at the cost of popularity in his party, McCain has often been a politician of stern principle. These are engaging qualities; and ones shared to some degree by Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential nominee. The pair were presented this week by some supporters as "maverick squared."


But these are the attributes not of an American president but of a defiant prisoner in a Hanoi prison camp; an unbowed dissident in the Soviet Union; or head of state in one of those countries with a presidency sufficiently powerless that it can be given as a lifetime achievement award to the keeper of a nation's conscience.


PictureBy contrast, the American presidency is an executive role. Decisions require deliberation; principle must be put to one side in the interest of a messy compromise; pride must be swallowed. My personal test is a hypothetical reenactment of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If McCain were president, could he really ignore the more belligerent rantings of America's enemies? Would he, like Jack Kennedy, have made the face-saving concession that helped the Soviet Union withdraw missiles from Cuba? If the phone rings at 3am in the White House, it's McCain the proud martyr I worry about rather than careful Barack Obama.


Watching the Maverick's

campaign fall down around his knees this week has been amusing.  His VP selection has been judged as a political choice only by 79% of the nation. Her poll numbers have dropped 10 points.  He thinks Spain is in this hemisphere.  He was against the bailout of AIG and then 24 hours later for it.  He now claims, after 24 years, that he is FOR regulation after innumerable remarks about being against it.  The great joy that his supporters professed at Lady deRothchild's defection was erased when she made that redneck remark. It's over.  He just looks like a desperate fool now.


 


mrs. maverick does not like mcain
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=1&no_interstitial&oref=slogin
Oh really? So the Maverick and the Rogue
When their poster boy cannot stand up to the glare of scruitiny, he is suddenly off limits? O camp is simply following the red camp lead, who insist that character counts....and crediblity, for that matter. You pick your issue, and I'll pick mine. He is a sham, a huckster turned hustler, self-serving, unable to stay on task, lurching around from one plan to another and a cheap opportunist...in many ways, much like the candidates who planted him in front of Obama in the first place. Socialist arguments are not at all viable when launched by witch hunting mobs who consistently demonstrate no understanding of the term and double standards when faced by academic challenges that apply the same socialist standards to their own candidates...standards that they themselves have defined repeatedly. Hypocrisy can be a strong turn-off for undecided voters trying to make up their minds. If you get to point that out every time you turn around, then hey, I'll take my turn every now and again. It's a free country, after all, isn't it?
THE TRUE MAVERICK (MC CAIN)

He may consider himself a "Maverick" and he may have "Love for Country" -- but his love is for men (military) and he has a disrespect for women as you will see in the following video clip -- but he will take votes from women (anything to win).


As you see John McCain allow someone to say this about Hillary (I not a fan) and not correct it or call the person on it -- and even laughs at it -- shows his true colors. 


He called his wife a C___ in public, I hate to think what he calls her at home.  His poor daughters are probably referred to "female dogs" on a daily basis.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o


(WHERE IS THE RESPECT FOR WOMEN?)


LETS FACE IT:   John McCain has "war on the brain" and you can tell by his actions that he truly feels that women have no place in the military.  Sometimes I wonder if he is running for "President of the United States" or "President of the Military of the United States." 


And yes, he is too old to lead -- just as someone would be too young to lead with the constitutional age qualification being 35.  I guess when they wrote the constitution they didn't imagine that they would have to cap it at the top, that anyone past retirement age in their Mid 70's would think they were caple of running the country.  Retirement age is 65 -- go enjoy your grandkids or something.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY&feature=user


(SENIOR MOMENTS)


 


mini-Maverick instructed by

judge prior to her election to quit harassing her sister's ex-husband and trying to get him fired by filing endless complaints against him with his boss.  After she elected, and trooper had already been disciplined by his superiors, she insisted on going after him anyway.  Rule of law . . . anybody?


 


mini-Maverick sought

federal earmarks to fund research on halibut and baby seals.  (Maybe to determine correct size of club?)


 


My opinion only. If John McCain was truly a maverick...sm
and wanted to have a fool-proof ticket, he would have nominated Michael  Bloomberg the mayor of New York City for VP, but that would not have cut it with the religious right,  I think he would have brought the most votes switching from Democrat Independent and ensure him the presidency. 
Wait. I'm confused. I thought the Maverick and Rogue
It's not so much change "into" something else...more like change "away from" where we've been. Chicken Little prognostications are prejudicial and unfounded. Judging the last 8 years and 90%...not so much.
The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.


    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.


    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.


    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.


    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:


    "We will drill..."


    "We'll drill..."


    "More drilling..."


    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.


    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.


http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican


Meaning what?
is this a veiled suggestion I move to France?

If so, I got a hot news bulletin for ya, pal: THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!

Vive la France!
The meaning -
the woman said it was the shadow of death behind Obama...
Is there a meaning in there somewhere? nm
nm
I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??

Then let's get out of there and let them control their government.  Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them.  As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own.  And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it. 


And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this.  The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS.  What a wonderful plan. 


There is more than one meaning for jihad...nm

I didn't come away with that meaning......sm
I read it to mean that if a woman wants an abortion and goes to a doctor or hospital to have it performed, the doctor or hospital cannot not refuse to perform it based on their own religious beliefs.

Very hypocritical, if you ask me (and not direted at you in particular), to say "keep the government out of my uterus because I can do with my body what I want" and then demand a doctor who does not believe in abortion to perform an abortion on you, in essence dragging him into your uterus where he does not want to be doing something he does not want to do.
If this is truly the meaning of the whole thing

fine.  I could never have an abortion because I personally believe it is wrong.  However, if people are bound and determined to terminate their pregnancy, I'd much rather it be done by a professional instead of these girls having babies in bathrooms and throwing them away, going to some whack job who does permanent damage or have some girl take poisonous things into their body to try and get rid of the pregnancy. 


There are pros and cons to abortion whether people want to see it or not.  Abortion will not be stopped and so I have to look at it like population control and just go on about my business.


I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board.  Are we clear now?
I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM
*No more of a radical than Jesus* IS a comparison.
True meaning of Christmas...sm
I have been watching the discussion on the conservative board about Christmas, it's origin and how it is celebrated. While there are a lot of charitable things that go on during the holiday season that are commendable, like Toys for Tots and food drives, I think it is sad how materialistic this season is. If you have kids it is hard to explain to them why one of their classmates got a Playstation 3 (600 dollars), games for the PS3 (200 dollars), laptop (1300 dollars), namebrand shoes and clothes (500 dollars), jewelry (200 dollars), etc, etc, when you can not, or have better sense than to spoil your child (and finances) like this.

My children know the value of a dollar. They also know that this season is about the birth of Christ, the spirit of giving, whether that be love or gifts.

I said all of that to ask this question. Do you think the majority of people who celebrate Christmas know the true meaning of Christmas or are they caught up in the hype of the latest best technology, the best decorations, the most expensive tree?
"present", meaning he showed up, but could not
nm
Hate to say it, but they aren't well-meaning at all s/m

They're blatantly peddling socialism..."spreading the wealth around?"  So if you make more than I do, Obtama will take from you & give some to me.  How can people NOT see this? 


As far asa I'm concerned, these Obama fanatics can move to Canada, Cuba, etc.  Look how well that's workin' for them.


Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Kruschev said they (meaning, their philosophy) would take us over from within.
One only has to imagine: Would Kruschev be laughing or crying over the direction the current administration is taking?

Not a tough question to answer, so there's no prize offered.
The real meaning of happy holidays.
Ever since I can remember, and I am 50, everyone said Merry Christmas AND/OR Happy Holidays and no one gave a flip either way. However, in my youthful naivete, little did I realize what happy holidays REALLY means. It is a code. It means that anyone who says it is really saying, I want to take Christ out of Christmas, and by the way, I hate America and I want the communists/terrorists to win.  So if you hear someone say happy holidays and the other person answers back happy holidays you know you have 2 people of interest who require, at the very least, a wiretap or two and surveillance for an indeterminate amount of time. They should be reported immediately to the FBI. Happy Holidays is a serious threat and a Code Orange.
God save us from well-meaning people as my mother
.
Meaning, I read and try to find informative sites
xx
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
A 9-letter word meaning "Thinking 'Everyone's out to get me'" 'Paranoiac.'? Nop
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Advertisement
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:

Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.

Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of “If you want, coordinate with him.”

Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.

The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.

The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister’s plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.

Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.

The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush’s visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.

However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel’s “offensive” requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.

During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.

The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.

A senior security official said the Americans were preparing “with the greatest speed” to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.

The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.

At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.

However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html


Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x