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

Show me the post. Link please. sm

Posted By: Brunson on 2007-02-26
In Reply to: Yes - Teddy

We may have in the past, but not lately, Teddy.  Lies?  Gosh, you like that word.  A lie is an untruth. You just ordered someone from the board.  That is a board moderator's job, not yours.  Hardly a lie.  A factual observation I would say. 


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

Hi, Your llink did not show up, only 'page not found.' so I post my link inside...sm

NewsWorld newsIran

Tehran braces for crackdown as protesters vow to defy KhameneiSupreme leader warns Mousavi supporters against bloodshed

guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009
Iran's opposition faces a critical test of resolve and the country an uncertain future tomorrow after the Islamic regime's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a blunt warning to those involved in mass protests over last week's "stolen" presidential election that they would "bear the responsibility" for any bloodshed.

Khamenei rejected accusations of fraud in the poll, confirmed the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as the winner, and gave no ground to the millions of Iranians demanding their votes back.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims he beat Ahmadinejad in the race, was said by an ally to have no plans for unauthorised rallies tomorrow following the warning, but supporters vowed to go on protesting.

Fears grew tonight of an intensifying crackdown on media and opposition activists. Students at the fine arts faculty of Tehran University – where scores of students were injured and some reported killed after raids by security forces earlier this week – announced an indefinite sit-in starting tomorrow.

Khamenei's closely watched speech at prayers at Tehran University could hardly have been tougher. It had been hoped he might adopt a more conciliatory tone that would help defuse the gathering crisis, the worst in Iran's 30-year post-revolutionary history. But he warned: "If there is any bloodshed, the leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible. The result of the election comes from the ballot box, not from the street. Today the Iranian nation needs calm."

Tens of thousands of worshippers cheered as he told them: "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."

Mousavi, a moderate former prime minister whose "green" movement scared the regime with the support it was attracting, ignored a call to attend the prayer meeting and now faces a dilemma over his next step. Ignoring Khamenei's message risks bloodshed on a far larger scale than the eight people killed last week. Accepting it means surrender to the regime.

The reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, another candidate for the presidency, added to the pressure tonight by also calling for the election to be annulled. "Accept the Iranian nation's will by cancelling the vote and guarantee the establishment's survival," he urged.

Khamenei attacked opponents at home but also lambasted Iran's enemies abroad in hardline remarks that bode ill for any opening to the US, where Barack Obama is seeking talks to tackle worries over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Britain was attacked as "the most evil", but the US, Israel and "Zionist-controlled" media were also abused, as was Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. "The enemies are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after [the vote]," said Khamenei.

The speech underlined the sense of profound crisis, since the supreme leader usually only speaks in public at the end of Ramadan and on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution.

Analysts and commentators were dismayed by its implications. Sadegh Saba, chief analyst for BBC Persian TV, said: "Mousavi wants the protests to continue but Khamenei is saying if they do there might be bloodshed – and it will be on your hands."

Issa Saharkhiz, a Tehran-based pro-reformist commentator, said Khamenei's speech had transformed the crisis from a conflict over the election result into a trial of his own political authority, which was now being openly questioned. "Now the issue is that the supreme leader's sense of justice, management and competence is under question," he told Deutsche Welle. "The leadership of the country cannot be left in the hands of such a person, who for the sake of preserving himself and his own power, threatens people with mass murder."

Crucially, Khamenei ruled out any cheating in the election, apparently dashing hopes that a partial recount ordered by the guardian council, a supervisory body of senior clerics, will mitigate the crisis.

Khamenei's call for Mousavi and Karroubi to confine their protests to legal avenues prompted mockery. "This means that Imam Hossein [the third most revered figure in Shia Islam], instead of making a last stand at Karbala, [should have] pursued his grievances through the legal process," one blogger said on the Farsi blogsite Balatarin.

Balatarin was flooded with messages voicing outrage at Khamenei's warning that opposition leaders would be held responsible for further unrest and bloodshed. One correspondent wrote: "Mr Khamenei, the direct responsibility for any damage to people's lives or property from now on lies with you."

In Washington, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators. It was the strongest message yet to Iran.

Link did not show....here it is again...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/outsourcing-outrageous-obamas-rhetoric-versus/story.aspx?guid=%7B96669C6B-1325-4F21-B44D-8CD419127655%7D
Show me a CREDIBLE link
and I'll consider it.  I don't take youtube speakers without any credibility whatsoever as gospel.
utter rubbish - show us the link
This is complete and utter nonsense. What study? One by democratic backers? Show me the link. The democrats have always been the "party dudes", usually you find more doped up, meth heads, war protesters, group hug type people voting democrat. They vote on looks and personality, not issues. Maybe when you said even keel instead you should have said "doped up to the state of oblivian". The conservatives have always been the party of free thinkers, small business owners, intellects, level headed, and open minded individuals. We look at both sides and listen to both opponents, and we are intelligent enough to decide who is throwing the "bull" around.

Every post I see on this board from a liberal is usually attacking personal and unimportant things (her daughter is pregnant, she was in a beauty contest, she had a down syndrom baby, she bought a tanning bed, she went to more than one school McCain is old, his wife is rich, Barack is good looking and his wife is pretty, he's a graduate of a law school, Biden (well nobody is saying anything about Biden - makes me wonder why). But all the issues I'm seeing by the liberals are all personality issues. Nothing of subtance. The messages I'm seeing from the conservatives are about issues. This is what Barack's policy will do, this is what McCain's policy will do, this is where Palin stands on this issue, etc.
post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
Show me one single thing in your post that is not
For starters, I am not the original poster you think you silenced with your question. I would be more than happy to step up and point out a few things that would lead many people to the conclusion that at least the message in your post is racist, and to the more general conclusion that people who post racist messages are very likely, well....racist.

It is difficult for some to distinguish the difference between prejudice, bigotry and racism. There is a reason for that. They are all forms of intolerance that vary only in degree and basis. Consider for a moment the definitions as they apply to the context of this post:

Prejudice: a: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Bigotry: The state of mind, action or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination

Now, to begin with, there is not a shred of truth to one single thing you have said here. That would qualify you as prejudiced on the basis of "without just ground, before sufficient knowledge." The conclusions you have drawn from your unfounded accusations would also suggest irrationality directed against an individual and the supposed characteristics, in this case, religion.

Obstinate, intolerant and devoted to you own opinions and prejudices, exhibiting hatred and intolerance...yesiree, we can check that off and confidently pronounce you bigoted as well.

Racist...your assumption that ACORN is a "racist organization." Unfounded, untrue and without proof. I challenge you now to show us one thing in your post that is not prejudiced, bigoted AND racist, keeping in mind that you have no leg to stand on whatsoever until you can PROVE your accusations. Ball's in your court, dear.
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
No need to post a link. I believe you. SM
I just wanted to know. 
Hey, post the link gt....nm
x
Can you post a link?
I've somehow missed this one. Thanks!
Sorry, just had to post this link

This is why people are voting for the O.


 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8


So you post a link you don't believe
And you expect no one to comment on that? Really?
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/
I tried to post the corroborating link...

but it didn't work.


Here it is, dated June 24, 2008, entitled "Terror Strike Would Help McCain, Top Adviser Says": 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301979.html


 


Sorry, the link didn't post.....
In a nutshell, Hawaii has passed "Islam Day" law....

Where is their "Christianity Day"?

Where's the loud mouth ACLU on this?

This country is heading to he!! in a handbasket!


click on the link previous post

It's alive, it's alive..Why, Dr. Frankenstein, it's alive!


Oops, meant to post link also
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898_pf.html
You should check your facts before you post - see link
Anyone looking for Barack Obama's real sentiments about whites, blacks and Muslims won't find them in this scurrilous collection of falsified, doctored and context-free "quotations." The e-mail claims to feature words taken from Obama's books, "The Audacity of Hope" (2006) and "Dreams from My Father" (1995, republished in 2004). But we found that two of the quotes are false, and others have been manipulated or taken out of context.

We have received many inquiries about this from readers whose suspicions were aroused, with good reason. Aside from the fact that the e-mail incorrectly cites the title of Obama's book as "Dreams of My Father," rather than "Dreams from My Father," you may have noticed that none of the quotes in this e-mail contain page references. This should be a sign to any reader that the author is trying to pull a fast one, betting that you won't take the time to read through all 806 pages of Obama's books to get to the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
Well, then post a link to YOUR local news!

Can you post the link again? I couldn't bring it up.
I'm from coal country and I heard about this but want to see it with my own eyes.
I'm just sort of in shock. I'm not even going to post a link. nm
x
Oh boy. WAKE UP. Follow the link before you post.
Both bills referred to here involve Equal/Fair pay remendies for WOMEN, not Congress.
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?
You can click on any of the brown places in the post and it will take you to the link.nm
x
Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to
.
Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to

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!
Post where this link is. Doesn't apply anymore, don't think...sm
If it does, post the link to the rule
Excuse me. All I did was post a link to a CBS news story
the ideas you brought up in your original post trying to imply that O's AG nominee was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think that kind of inaccurate accusation deserves some sort of defense. You evidently have a tough time digesting data that in any way contradicts your thinking, so now we have gotten to the place where I am a pouncing, bug-squashing know-it-all who slaughters innocent insects with my windshield? For posting a link to a reputable news article written directly in the aftermath of 9/11 (YEARS before Mr. Holder's nomination). Really? Don't you think you may be over-reacting just a tad?
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
I didn't post a link, I posted a smard alek

reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly.  It was dripping in sarcasm.  LOL  I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it.  I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.


We can all agree to disagree.  What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves.  I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.


I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration.  I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies.  I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration.  What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand.  AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty.  That didn't work too well  under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it.  That's an issue to  me.  No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that.  Why?  I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.


Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.

I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.

But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?

You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.



Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):

Ayers

Wright

Dorhn

Michelle

Khalidi


The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=



I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).



Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
I know most of it's for show
But how does she get on TV saying things like she did about Jewish people? How does she sleep at night after saying something like that? She just gets more and more outrageous just to get a reaction - and yeah sometimes it works because what she says is hateful. I have no problem with anyone giving their views, but she's hateful about it and that is what I have a problem with (and no, as I've said before I don't condone hateful things on either board)
goes to show

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


 


Just goes to show you that you need to ...sm
have an inquiring mind and not take as gospel what is spoon fed to you by either party. I particularly like the "fact checks" on both party's candidates. The perception is that we American voters are fools and will believe anything we are told.
Show me a pic
I can't find a pic with a lump on his jaw.
show me
show me refusal to acknowedge - I haven't seen it.
Goes to show you - sm
McCain is concerned about the people. Obama is concerned about himself.

McCain was absolutely right on the spot when he said there needs to be an investigation, just as there was when 9-11 happened, we need one now for this crisis.

One more plus to show McCain is interested and will work for us, while Obama....well Obama is for Obama.
Once again....goes to show

how people who get their tail feathers all ruffled after someone personally attacks an Obama supporter on the board, but they have no problem calling McCain supporters names and personally attacking them by stating they lack intelligence.


Look in the mirror....your hypocracy is showing.


Don't believe it. Show me. nm
.
You show me anywhere where he said...
95% of American workers WHO PAY TAXES. SHOW me where it says that. But, supposing that is what he means...there are still that 30-40%. Those people pay taxes. Then they get deductions and credits. They get back every dime they paid in and THEN some. They are part of that 95% who "pay taxes." Got it? And about 30-40% of the working public fall into that category. so it is back to square one. Yes, they "pay taxes." Taxes are deducted. Then they file. They get the deductions and the credits and whatever (I am talking about NOW). They get back every dime they paid in. These people technically "pay taxes." If you work one day a year and have deductions, you "pay taxes" and will be included.

I understand that you don't see it. I understand that you are filling in the blanks that he left open. I don't see it the way you see it. He is counting on people seeing it the way you see it. So be it.

YOu can yell BOGUS until you are blue in the face. I will yell NAIVE just as loud.



"He is assuming it is understood." Well, he is hoping that everyone will understand it the way YOU understand it. I am not so enamored of him that I cannot read between the lines. And frankly, as BOGUS as my line of thinking appears to me, YOURS is naive at best. So we will agree to disagree. If he went on television and told you tomorrow that he was going to cut checks to people who don't pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, you would be on this board defending the decision tomorrow night.






You show me where he says it is not.
You assume it is not. I assume that it will be. Based on everything his history is, based on everything he has said, including starting at the BOTTOM. Just where do you think Mr Obama perceives the bottom to be? What is your assumption on that?
Please show me where....(sm)
Obama has said that he will "give to those who would not [work]."  And by the way, does that include Social Security? 
OK show me
Where does it say the Secret Service blames McCain/Palin?

There were people who spoke about potential threats to Obama before he even became the Democratic candidate. To act now like it's all because of McCain and Palin stirring them up is ludicrous.

Bigotry is out there. Or do you honestly believe no one would have noticed that Obama is an African-American?



I don't like her either, but she has every right to be on the show
I don't like Ann Coulter at all. I think she's obnoxious and arrogant. But then again I don't like the View. I think it's filled with old "has been" housewives and mothers who just sit and gab and give their opinion and put down anyone who doesn't agree with them (i.e. anyone who is not a liberal). I watched the View a couple times and there was nothing interesting or entertaining about it. If they don't like a guest they won't even look at them (Joy Bear (or however you spell her last name) is such a pig! - I can explain and prove that in another post if anyone is interested). Anyway...for anyone to come out and say there is no reason to have someone (no matter who it is) on their show is a bit Nazi-ism. Who are you to say who they should have on and who they shouldn't. Her opinion of Barbara Walters is just that, her opinion. I didn't see the show, but when she said that I'm sure she was jumped on by the others. None of them can stand any person who is not a liberal and they try (and I use the word loosely), try to ridicule them. Luckily it doesn't work. From my understanding of what I've read on this board and elsewhere is that Ann Coulter says things to inflame others. She says things for what they call "shock value". I'm sure Barbara Walters is a big girl (I like Barbara Walters - just can't stand the others on the show), but Barbara is a big girl and can stand up for herself. She's smart and a quick thinker so I'm sure she had an intelligent comeback. But as for Ann Coulter saying things, that's just the way she is and they all know that and knew well before hand that she would most likely do that. Besides they do have a script they follow to some degree with questions prepared ahead of time and what they say and how they plan to cut down a non-liberal.

But for you to come out and say there is no reason to have such a person featured on TV? That is a bit too Nazi-ism for me. Everybody deserves to go on whatever show they want to. Her views have no value? According to you and other liberals they may not, but there are others who like her and would like to hear her interviewed. And certainly the View wanted her on the show otherwise she would have not been there.

I'm just glad your not in charge of who is allowed to go on what shows, or what books we can read (burn all those you don't agree with) - sound familiar?