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

Probably the same reason the hateful right is

Posted By: 'celebrated' by some. Different opinions. on 2008-09-29
In Reply to: Unfortunately, our "free country" celebrates "Huff" - and the hateful left. Why are you like that?nm

XX


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

This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't

his own personal reasons.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php


The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.


Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."


Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.


In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.


"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"


Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.


Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.


Conversations With Bush The Candidate


Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.


The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.


I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."


Debating The Timeline For War


But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.


The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.



On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"


I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."


"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …


"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.


Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.



Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"


Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.


Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."


Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.


Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.



 


You just can't see how hateful you are
can you?  You just accused someone of being and alcoholic without knowing one thing about him or her.  You are the one who gets loopier the longer you post.  You are the reason along with your ilk that no one can post anyone where on this forum and I sincerely hope that the moderator bans you.
If you act this hateful, then you probably
nm
You should know by know how hateful
nm
What is hateful about it? sm
It's a protest. We do that in this country. She's a politician. People disagree with her political positions and policies and it's hateful? You're taking it waaaay too personally. If you go out and protest against your governor's policies, does that make you hateful, for expressing your opinion and disagreeing with your governor? Of course not. Ladies, SP is not your mother/daughter/sister/BFF. She can handle herself. Keep in mind, she's a *politician.* They all are in this race.
it is not hateful until the end, where it says...
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." This was clearly not meant to be nice. Also, posting near a Nativity scene was just trying to pick a fight. However, destroying the sign, stealing it or anything else is not the right thing to do either. Rather, I think that I just feel for someone who needs to be so controversial in a happy season and would ignore it, shaking my head.
It is hateful in that
it is totally unnecessary.  They sure go to a lot of trouble to fight against something they don't believe in.
Exactly how have I been hateful.
x
I am sorry! But I did not mean it in a hateful
way, really, but it is what it is, isn't it?
I admit I better shouldn't have posted it, but I have the same associations DePass has when I look at her.
Maybe it is also because Obama is so much handsomer than Michelle.
It always amazes me when people see Michelle as beautiful! Only in the eye of the beholder.
JMHO, sorry about that.

You are clueless and hateful
and EVERYTHING stated in that article is LIES!
WOW the Conservatives are hateful here.
I was looking on the conservative board and there is so much aggression and anger there.  What is up with that? WHY?
Are you just naturally hateful...
or do you practice? Time for your meds? For someome supposedly sympathetic to the mentally ill (i.e. those on meds), that was a pretty hateful catty little statement. Sticks and stones, Teddy. Sticks and stones.
Yes, he may be hateful and that is why Obama
Obama has distanced himself from Rev. Wright. He does not believe what Rev. Wright has started spewing. What part of this don't you and others understand.

I had a lot of very good and close friends in high school we had a lot in common and were inseparable. Now I've heard from them and their viewpoints are no where near mine and they are nobody I would ever be friends with. This goes to show that people do change.

I for one believe Obama when he says he does not agree with Rev. Wright. I'm just wondering why people won't accept that, but McCain who is still affiliated with his biggoted and hateful pastors say "I don't feel agree with them" and everyone says ok and belives him????
Please explain where Sam is hateful?
I have seen nothing hateful posted. Seriously, I want to know what you consider "hateful."
Does ot make him any less hateful.
nm
Sam argues, but is not hateful in the way
nm
Have you always been this hateful toward the poor?
such hostility toward the working class you so strongly assert to be defending is dead-end dialog. That 95% IS the "working class", as you call them. I prefer the term income earners. If you had any clue about the true state of this economy, you would realize that not only is the 95% tax cut feasible, it is exactly what we need and it will be coming at exactly the right time when we all need it the most.

I do not live in a universe where taxpayers line up and bend over while they bail out corporate welfare deadbeats and turn a blind eye on themselves and their children. It must be a very dark world you come from where you seem to thrive on the energy it takes to sustain such hatred in your heart for the poor. My sympathies.
Is This Sign Hateful?

SEE BOTTOM OF MESSAGE FOR SIGN PIC FIRST.


======================================


CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.


An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch. "I thought it would be safe," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN earlier Friday. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to." The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says in part. The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said. The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."


"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."


Gaylor said that police are checking security cameras pointed at the building's entrances and exits to see if they can see anyone stealing the sign.
 
"It's probably about 50 pounds, " Gaylor said. "My brother-in-law was huffing and puffing carrying it up the stairs. It's definitely not something you can stick under your arm or conceal."


The Washington State Patrol, which is handling the incident, could not be reached for comment.


Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher and co-founder of the group, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.


Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)
"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to he**ll if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."


He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.


"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."


The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.


In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.


"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."


That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.


Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.


Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.


"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."


The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.
But the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.


"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.


"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."


As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.
"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."


The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.


The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.


"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."


For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.


"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."
The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.


"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."


What mean and hateful things you say...
It makes sense that a lot of MT's are conservative. It is a job that can be done from home, earning income and still raising your own family (why I do it), which really is a pretty conservative thing to do. Being conservative does not make me stupid or any of the other hateful words that you alluded to, nor does disagreeing with you.
Her comments are not hateful, considering
the general consensus is that Palin has hurt McCain more than his connection to Bush.  By the way, MrsM never said she hated Palin, but she obviously has a strong opinion about her, and MrsM did not personally attack by namecalling anyone else on here for their opinion.  And yet another example of twisting someone's words to suit their own agenda.  McPalin has taught you well, Grasshopper.
See how hateful liberals are? Which is why I no
nm
He's a hateful person if ever I saw one......
-
Could you possibly be any more bitter and hateful? sm
I see your posts all over.  You just posted on the conservative board but didn't have the nerve to put your usual "gt" signature.  I have never seen someone so totally consumed with bitterness, rage and, well, just plain ugliness. 
posts are vile and hateful
Your posts are vile and hateful..I really truly dont know why you defend Bennetts comments cause they are indefensible..and now we come to this..poverty and crime..this is getting uglier and uglier and I will not respond..
No gt you're never hateful or nasty
don't stand in an open field during a thunderstorm.
Yes, Sam -these people are vicious and hateful.
nm
It IS hateful and it IS totally unnecessary

As a Christian, I personally find it offensive, hateful, rude and totally unnessary.


Hateful because it implies that the atheists or whoever wrote the sign has the handle on "good," as in "just be good for goodness sake."  Rude because it implies that people who believe in God are not as smart as they are.  Totally UNNECESSARY.  No one forces anyone to believe in God and you have NO right to try to ram your nonbelief down my throat.  If you want to put a Hannakuh or however you spell it, tree or whatever next to the Nativity scene, fine, that is not offensive.  OTH atheists believe in  nothing so what the heck are they protesting?  Do they also protest every commercian Santa Claus becaue "THEY" don't believe in Santa Claus?  This  politically correct cr*p has gotten completely out of hand.


It IS hateful and it IS totally unnecessary

As a Christian, I personally find it offensive, hateful, rude and totally unnessary.


Hateful because it implies that the atheists or whoever wrote the sign has the handle on "good," as in "just be good for goodness sake."  Rude because it implies that people who believe in God are not as smart as they are.  Totally UNNECESSARY.  No one forces anyone to believe in God and you have NO right to try to ram your nonbelief down my throat.  If you want to put a Hannakuh or however you spell it, tree or whatever next to the Nativity scene, fine, that is not offensive.  OTH atheists believe in  nothing so what the heck are they protesting?  Do they also protest every commercian Santa Claus becaue "THEY" don't believe in Santa Claus?  This  politically correct cr*p has gotten completely out of hand.


Funny how you don't think Mrs. M comments above are hateful..nm

Me too... boo hoo. How I shall miss the hateful left.
nm
Some of the most bitter and hateful people I have
nm
Bitter, hateful and jealous? (sm)

You must be kidding.


Problems that dems have:


8 years of failed economic and foreign policy, a president who ignored the warnings for 9/11 as well as warnings of an economic meltdown, thousands of unnecessary deaths because of a cowboy mentality, war crimes instituted by the highest offices in the US, civil liberties taken away, right of privacy taken away, a barrage of last minute policies that negatively impact the environment, social well-being, and who knows what else.  And this is just the tip of the iceburg.  We are still paying for all of these actions, not only financially as well as with our country's reputation, but most importantly with lives. 


Problems that pubs have:


Obama is the President-Elect and you guys are worried because of rumors about what he MIGHT do.


HMMMMMM.....


He is extremely hateful. Why would Obama go to
nm
The guy has said a list of hateful garbage.
nm
as said: jealous and hateful losers...nm
nm
LOL ! And you are calling people hateful below??
NM
this is not hateful, it is just an analysis and the truth...nm
I cannot believe the B* that is posted by the Rep on the Politics Board, especially the last 2 days, this has gone INSANE !
I'm tired of talking to hateful people
it's all about winning to you.  I get it.  Guess what your agenda lost in 04...so I guess that explains your bitterness. Sore losers the bunch of you.  You can stay over here have your little pep rally about how you are going to take over soon....it's all about one upmanship.  You can care less what is good for this country.   You all are the kings and queens of attack.  Look on your board and see how much debate is going on, hardly any...it's all a Bush and conservative hate-fest.  I can debate ALL DAY LONG, but I won't be made fun off and attacked by pure idiots....yeah I said it, idiots!! 
All the while telling us how hateful WE are. Totally clueless. nm

what a hateful thing to say. She has obviously bonded with her Down's child...
and that child is surrounded by a large family who loves him very much. And she is the antithesis of a neocon. Nice try.


Chele is not hateful or heartless, but honest.
nm
Typical dem on this board, insulting, hateful.
Plenty, but you will just bash that as well.  So much for intelligent conversation. 
Pointing out that middle name is hateful and racist sm
You know that is designed to stir trouble. Muslims are not all evil and Barack isn't even a muslim. Yeah that is his middle name SO WHAT RACIST?
nothing hateful written; it is not Totally Unnecessary.
nm
gourdpainter - you're one to be calling someone hateful
x
sick bigoted hateful comments
digusting
Truth? You're delusional if those think those hateful . . .
signs portraying President Obama as Hitler, as a socialist, a lot of them extremely racist, are truthful.  And those are the signs that were shown on the coverage from Fox.  Inciting hate and racism is Un-American, no two ways about it.
Only hateful liars would be proud it wasn't a failure.

You're right - due to the slimy, lying, underhanded tactics of the administration and your boy, Bush, the Swift Boat fiasco with Kerry may  have had an impact on the election.  You sound like you're proud of that.  Figures.


Why can't you folks just leave Sheehan alone.  Why can't someone be anti-war and speak their mind without you guys going nuts? 


LOL, and you call us hateful! You got stupid, moron and the list goes on in there. nm

That is just plain wrong, checked your hateful source
and I find it incendiary
Yeah. Those hateful liberals are being sued right and left
x