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

Quick definition..sm

Posted By: sm on 2008-09-13
In Reply to: Marxist/socialist? Please. You are just being...sm - oldtimer



Marxist-Socialist

A philosophy-turned-governmental-ideology, usually mistaken for Stalinist/Leninist-Communist. This philosophy, although greatly misunderstood, is nothing more that the belief that the strong, the capable, and the powerful should support those too weak to support themselves. This philosophy, created by Karl Marx, was meant to be the fundamental building block for a utopian society, but was later taken up by a man named Lenin, who twisted and warped the pure isea of Socialism and turned it into Leninist-Communism. Later adopted by Joseph Stalin, who made the idea of Socialism a cruel cycle of death, hatred, and intolerence.


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

Why are you so quick to believe he isn't is the
nm
I just quick read this but
it seems these were Saddam henchmen not *9/11 perps* as was claimed above unless you all are finally conceding that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

However, I agree that these people shouldn't just walk free. If they are connected in any way with Saddam and/Al Queda/Hamas or any known terror cell they should never see light of day again be it in the depths of a prison or from their graves.
Just one quick question...
where is the iota of value in this post? And, as it has been explained on numerous occasions, we are allowed to cross-post. Liberals also post on the conservative board. I asked a simple question of a liberal poster and was rewarded first with condescending comments alluding to the superior intellect of the liberal poster, and rewarded second with accusations that I was a cliche (my native american heritage). And after all that....refused to answer my question. I suspect because the posterior was incapable of doing so. Perhaps you can explain to me why many liberal posters post something, and when you ask them a question about it and they cannot, the resort to condescending and hateful comments. Talk about not having one iota of value in a post other than to talk down to someone asking a simple question. Wouldn't the best thing to do be just not answer the post at all? Don't understand the defensiveness. All that tells me is that they are not secure in what they believe and without talking points to refer to are lost as a goose. That is not an accusation...it is an observation.
Just another quick observation...
when Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing, even though he is not anywhere on my list of favorite people, I was happy that he came and represented the office and spoke to we Oklahomans. It was moving and I was very, very happy that he came. What I did NOT do, and what NO conservative I was aware of did, was complain that why did he come there and NOT go to the funerals of those soldiers who were killed and their bodies dragged behind Jeeps in Somalia. Why, you ask? Because the two had absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. And to try to make political hay out of what happened at Virginia Tech is immature, thoughtless, and another hurt to add to those poor folks in VA trying to deal with this. War is awful, hateful, and NOBODY wants it; however, death has always been associated with war. However, going to your class innocently on any April day and having a lunatic come in and shoot 32 of you is FAR different. And if you really cannot see the difference and the emotional effect, not just you but a great many on the left, need to really sit down and examine your values. Seriously.
Quick question for you
How can McCain vote with Bush 90% of the time when Bush does not have a vote in the senate? Also, a lot of the votes in the senate are unanimous so that means that democrats are voting "with Bush" too. Please research these things by looking at actual voting records of folks instead of believing whatever the media says, left or right.
Quick question
I can't believe that I am going to get involved in this, but I have to stand up for the truth..

1 Peter 3:15 "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence".

What do you think makes you a Christian, bcuz you were baptized? Never in scripture does it say to be a Chrisitan you have to be baptized. Being baptized is the outward sign that you are a christian. It is all based on believing in Jesus who died on the cross for your sins. John 3:16; John 3:36; John 6:40; John 6:47 the list could go on.

Women Deacons:
God never once said deacons were to be women. It is talked about in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. However, you need to read the scripture in contexts, bcuz this is where a lot of people think when he says "wife" he is saying "deaconess",however, this is not the case. You need to take the words back to the original language to understand their true meaning. Also if you search out 1 corinth 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. If you have a lexacon, I suggest using it, and if not buy one.

For homosexuality:
Sin is sin, all sin is equal to death (Rom. 6:23)unless you have trusted the Father. Once you have trusted the Father then you also have the Holy Spirit housed in you. With the Holy Spirit, you will feel convicted over your sins and ask for forgiveness. This does not mean that you will never sin for all sin. There is none righteous, not even one (Rom. 3:10). However, if you ask for forgiveness it will be granted to you (1 John 1:9).

This does not mean that homosexuality is right. This was never what God intended. (1 Corinth 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10) Just a few passages.

I do not hate homosexuals, as hate would be a sin in God's eyes. However, we need to love them and show them that God loves them too. If they would trust in God, he would forgive them and help them to turn away from their sin.

Tithing:
Tithing is an old testament law. Once Jesus' blood was shed on the cross that was our payment of sin and no longer holds us under the law of the old testament. However, this is one law that churches like to hold onto. If you practice this law of the old testament, then you know that it is not only 10% of your earnings, but 10% of everyhing in your possession.


Pro choice:
As you stated this is everywhere in the bible. God never wanted abortion. All children are His children. Refer to the Ten Commandments, "Thou shall not commit murder". This is all over in the bible.

As a professing Christian, I hope that you brush up on what scripture teaches us. You are hurting the Christian race by blasphemying Christ; going against His word. (Matt 12:31) We need to keeps God Commandments (John 14:15;). I could go on.

As for things are different today then they were back then, read Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever".

True Christian's beliefs should not be different. There is only one bible (different translations), but if you studied it and researched it back to its original language, you would know that "religion" does not make us Christians, believing His word does.

I am not trying to bash you, I am merely trying to help you.

I attend a free grace church. If you or anyone wants to learn more you may email me and I will give you the church website. We have free sermons to download and listen to.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life".
Sad that some Americans always want a quick
nm
Unbelievable is all I can say, Everyone so quick to...sm
believe and condem. Does not anyone know that what you read on the internet is not gospel? I have not heard a thing on the national news, so I will wait and see.
Why are you so quick to discount this but you
@
Way too quick to judge!
I was simply passing on a story, like the OP. I'm not Republican because my dad is. I'm a conservative and if those beliefs happen to go along with the Dem candidate, then that's who I'll vote for. The story was meant to show how people's idea of "spreading the wealth" can sound like a really good idea - everyone haveing an equal share - but when you get down to it, it goes against everything our country was founded on. The American Dream - come sign up to get your welfare check! No thanks!!!
Quick question.

Did they know Rock Hudson was gay back then?  I didn't realize that was public knowledge back then.  I thought that came out later. 


I still say that teaching children tolerance of others different than they are is one thing.  Teaching acceptance of such a controversial topic is another story.


As for not teaching 5 year olds...what was with the story about the same-sex penguins who raised a baby penguin together?  If that isn't teaching kindergartners about homosexuality...well then I don't know what is.


Tolerance can be taught without teaching acceptance of homosexuality in public schools.  Besides, since homosexuality is much more out there than it was when I was in school, you would think kids would be used to having them in their schools anyway.  I keep hearing about how same sex marriage is more acceptable especially by younger people and yet here you are telling us that homosexuality acceptance should be taught in public schools because it isn't accepted by young people.  So which is it?


That was quick. Sorry I missed (*%*'s MySpace.
nm
how about a quick tubal ligation
dontcha think?
My quick explanations of my comments --
I did not blindly follow Obama. I did not vote for Obama because he is black. Actually, my vote may have been more of a vote against McCain than for Obama.

Next, to the points that I can address quickly - he is now not going to raise taxes on the "rich" because of the current economic condition, but that he is still intending on giving tax breaks to the middle class families.

He also said during the campaign that he is going to bring the troops home, but it has to be in a safe manner. You cannot just say that they are pulling out on a certain day - that would be crazy and extremely dangerous for our soldiers. It has to be arranged. He had a timeline in the beginning - people just jumped on what he said and took things out of context and listen to what words they want to hear, not every word.

I for one will support him as long as he is doing a good job and then I will be the first to stand up and say I should not have voted for him if things go bad. And the whole point of sending them to other countries, we all agreed in the beginning that we need to get Osama Bin Laden, so why not do it now? I think he needs to be gone and I think we need to do whatever it takes to get him. I, however, think that Obama's point of view is the same as mine, we should not be in Iraq wasting our time when that is not where the problem is...

When I say "love him or hate him", I mean that nobody is lukewarm for his policies. It seems as if everyone is either gungho behind him or gungho against him. That has been proven time and time again just on this board, not to mention other places out in public that I have been. The people who are for him are for him and the people that area against him cannot be objective to sit down and listen to his whole speech or his whole idea.
Don't be so quick to bash Bush.... sm

This is near the bottom of the article I posted.  Maybe you just missed it.


"To gain access to the emergency loans, GM and Chrysler must also agree to a wide range of concessions, including limits on executive pay and the elimination of their private corporate jets. "


Everyone put it on Bush's shoulders to do some thing about this and now that he has, still he gets bashed.  He's not my favorite president by far, but I think he should be afforded some kind of recognition for doing something to help the economy.  As far as pay cuts for the UAW, the article says that they will have to bring their wages more in line with those of foreign auto makers, which is still a danged good salary.  Would the UAW rather have a pay check or be completely unemployed?  That is pretty much what it all boils down to.  I wouldn't particular want to take a pay cut either, but in light of the situation and the current economic picture, I think I would thank my lucky stars that I at least would HAVE a jo


Like the old saying goes "You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time."


Off


Wow, you sure are quick! BTW...love grapes! nm
//
Someone help me quick, I think I am turning Republican!!!!.......psm
Okay, lifelong Dem, coming from a family of generations of lifelong Dems, loving my country and always supporting my party......I have been watching C-Span for many, many hours over the past few days....while I believe we have to save our economy (and our people) very quickly, with prudence and accountability, the pork grease that I see dripping off this bill, despite its good points, is making me ill.  Please, will some of the Democratic leaders cut the pork, cut the BULL, get down to the necessary and proven, INSURE AND GUARANTEE accountability in every area of this bill, and put my faith back?????  Wow, this Bill is starting to stink more than my Grandfather's dairy farm on a hot summer day, and for the same reason, lots of bull $h*t.  Help???  I like blue so much better! 
Someone help me quick, I think I am turning Republican!!!!.......psm
Okay, lifelong Dem, coming from a family of generations of lifelong Dems, loving my country and always supporting my party......I have been watching C-Span for many, many hours over the past few days....while I believe we have to save our economy (and our people) very quickly, with prudence and accountability, the pork grease that I see dripping off this bill, despite its good points, is making me ill.  Please, will some of the Democratic leaders cut the pork, cut the BULL, get down to the necessary and proven, INSURE AND GUARANTEE accountability in every area of this bill, and put my faith back?????  Wow, this Bill is starting to stink more than my Grandfather's dairy farm on a hot summer day, and for the same reason, lots of bull $h*t.  Help???  I like blue so much better! 
A quick look at this board shows...
me exactly where they are.
After a quick scan of the board...
...I respectfully and totally disagree.
Quick - can you see this author's logical
Whether someone says "You shouldn't be able to do in your bedroom" or someone says "You should be able to do in your bedroom", it's just opposite sides of the same thing, i.e. someone offering an opinion about your bedroom activities. Whether it's "may" or "may not" doesn't change the fundamental character of the statement.

Got brain?


Quick b4 they melt. She thinks global
nm
quick get out your remote lie detector tester
and tell us all from your isolated, secret location what is true and what is not. 
Here, hold up a mirror, real quick....you just described...sm
how almost every liberal on this board holds their fellow members, you know, the ones so cherishingly called "repugs" and "rabid pubs."


You sound a lot like Ann right then....in reverse.


So predictable.
Quick to judge, aren't you? At least you apologized....
//
Quick question about the "sex" marriage thing...
So, if married MEANS you can if you want have children, what if I married a man who was NOT ABLE to have children and I knew this.  Could I still marry him?  Would we be considered "married" in the eyes of others since we could not have children?  Or a woman unable to have children, should she be able to be married?  Just a thought!
Quick question about the "sex" marriage thing...
So, if married MEANS you can if you want have children, what if I married a man who was NOT ABLE to have children and I knew this.  Could I still marry him?  Would we be considered "married" in the eyes of others since we could not have children?  Or a woman unable to have children, should she be able to be married?  Just a thought!
Quick! Someone call the pound. AG's pit bull broke loose from

We can't be quick enough. You've seen how they're passing enormous bills -
- that they don't even read within a matter of hours. First the stimulus, then the tax bill on executive bonuses, etc.

Meanwhile, it's taken them over six months to investigate some very straightforward charges against Charlie Rangel.

CORRUPT!
What is your definition of..

winning the war, Iraq and Viet Nam. What exactly does that mean, that there will democracy, an industrialized, technologically adept population? that we will overthrow the **terrorists**  (where will they go??) and peace will be restored to the kingdom?  I don't get what you think is going to be achieved by staying in Iraq. There has never been peace in the region and there never will be, NEVER unless Himself comes down here and changes things. And another question Islamofascists, who on God's green earth came up with that moniker? It is really quite bizarre, and a mouthful.


Where did you copy the chickenhawk piece from, just curious.


Thanks for the definition!
That is me..liberal to the core and so proud of it.  Watching the debate last night I was shaking my head watching those old men with old ideas, so out of touch.  Made me so happy that Im a liberal democrat.
Okay but by your definition
His BROTHER is in need! And if not him, definitely his aunt who is living in public housing, illegally at that (unless it's been refuted and I missed that part)

All I'm saying is you have to start at home. Family should come first. I would believe him a lot more about taking care of others if I saw him doing that, instead of just trying to tax us to take care of others.

On a side note, why in the heck does someone who makes almost 1M in 2006 get to claim a child care credit? Like they need that.


By definition it is...
a servile (submissive) self-seeking flatterer
Definition of NWO from wikipedia

The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.


If your definition is accurate
which I highly dobut then I guess I'm a liberal because I don't pledge blind loyalty to Bush. On the other hand I don't think every word he says is a lie either. I think he is a human capable of human mistakes, but I don't think every problem in the world at this moment is Bush's fault like many on this board do. I think many people are obsessed with the fact there's a conservative in office. It wouldn't matter what their name was Bush or Smith, the obsession would be the same. There are many wacko theories out there on all sorts of issues, but some I have read here take the cake. You don't talk about any other issues other than Bush is fault of everything wrong in this world. To me, liberal or conservative, is a little off the deep end no matter what political ideology you come from.
Do we have a different definition for the word lie?nm
z
If you want a definition of racism...
read the creed for Obama's church...and read some of his pastor mentor's sermons...and some of the speeches and quotes of their friend Louis Farrakhan. That, my friend, is the very definition of racism. When you read the creed of the church, substitute the word "white" everywhere the word "black" is used and tell me it is not racist. We do NOT need a racist in the White House.
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
What is the definition of "wind bag"?
Once again, I just skimmed your post. You are much too fond of your own words.

I am pretty succint in my posts. There is no flip flop. I am stating history in black and white. It doesn't come from Common Dreams. I am explicit in sending the links for those to read them if they wish. I don't quote it. I think you got the market cornered on that maneuver.

Not much of value has come out of the coservative sector, from my point of view. All the sustainable social movements have been on a liberal front. It just so happens that we are a small faction and can get very little leverage, but when we do, it is for the benefit of all not just a few. Can the conservative sector say that? I don't think so.

This is not childish. It's political fact. If you makes you feel better to place the blame everywhere, well that's your right.

If you don't like my liberal thoughts or progressive ideas, don't read my posts. Continue to be a sheep.
Thanks, but I did not want a dictionary definition....
I wanted a *liberal* to define what that means to them...what are their views...what is the *platform* so to speak...what makes a *liberal* different from a *leftist?* Why is Obama not a liberal? That is the information I am seeking...not a dictionary definition. In a liberal's own words, so to speak.
I think that might be a stretch in the definition of
socialism.
Definition of choice

Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.


You choose your path, I'll choose mine.


In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.


The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.


 


FYI...Here is the definition of stalking.
Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.

The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.

Stalkers use a wide variety of methods to harass their targets. The inventiveness, persistence, and obsessive nature of stalkers is almost unimaginable, until you have experienced being the target.

Stalking is a serious, potentially life-threatening crime. Even in its less severe forms, it permanently changes the lives of the people who are victimized by this crime, as well as affecting their friends, families, and co-workers. Law enforcement is only beginning to understand how to deal with this relatively new crime.
What's the definition of pubic?
.
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
the definition of Christian
would be one that "follows" Christ -- by his example, his commands, etc. these creeps are NOT Christians by any way of measure.
Definition of cult
All you have to do is read the Faith board to see the similarities.

1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Definition of a TOOL, taken from the
TOOL (tewl):

(n.) Someone who is used for the benefit of others. A person who lacks any real quality of life, because they reduce themselves to arbitrary and meaningless activity which wastes their existence and entirely eliminates who they are as an individual.
____________________________

Face it. If we're MT's, then we're ALL pathetic 'tools'.
What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
x
Definition of terrorism.
Perhaps I can speak to this as someone who is both trained and educated in the subject.

The FBI, State Department, DHS, United Nations and numerous other agencies and experts have defined terrorism in somewhat different ways, but most definitions agree on some common elements with respect to terrorism:

1. Instilling fear...
2. ...in a civilian population...
3. ...by violence or threat of violence...
4. ...to advance social, political or religious objectives...
5. ...outside the context of lawful means of change or the conduct of war.

Although it is frequently said (usually in the popular press) that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", implying that the term is entirely subjective, this is only true when one of the "men" in question is intellectually dishonest. Terrorism has been defined with sufficient clarity that we can say with a high degree of specificity what is, and what is not, terrorism and who are, and who are not, terrorists.

When people seek to strike a moral equivalency between actions that are fundamentally terrorist and those that merely share certain common elements (for instance, both terrorists and nations at war use bombs), they are confusing superficial similarity with equivalency. This inevitably leads them into errors in thinking and the consequences of such errors - bad judgments, bad decisions, and wrong actions.

You might find a mouse in your cookie jar, but that doesn't make it a cookie.
You have an odd definition of insult.
Michelle Obama was roundly hooted when she suggested that racism is anything that a person perceives to be racist, and here you are offering the same sort of definition. "Insult is anything someone considers to be insulting."

If you can't figure out the problems with definitions like these, I'll be happy to tell you - but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.