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

Sm does not need your help explaining her motives.

Posted By: I was asking her, not you. x on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: Presenting the truth is not motive enough? nm - sam

x


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

My motives are nothing more than the knowledge.
And I am not quite sure what you mean by the "nail us". I am quite sure you had nothing to do with it so I am not sure why you have taken such a defensive posture.

I was just surprised by it and wanted to dig further. This is just one more nasty side to war, another reason why I'm against it. I am sorry if it offends you. I am distressed that it gets little US media coverage, just like so much of the nasty aspects of war that it seems our government dosen't elaborate on, dismiss, hide, or what have you because it makes it easier to justify their stance on war if they don't actually have to look at it.

It's not the soldiers I worry about, it's the ones giving the orders to the soldiers that I don't have much trust in doing the right thing.

I don't believe it proper for us as Americans to pass such harsh judgment of other's culture. Is it not possible that these children who are at risk are at risk because the war has left them that way?

I do not believe that "re-educating" them will have any lasting effect. This paragraph sums it up pretty good I think:

"What is wrong with this picture? First, it should be obvious that it is not the job of the U.S. government to tell people what version of Islam to embrace on pain of permanent incarceration. As long as people are not committing or fomenting acts of violence, it is not our role to pressure them into changing their faith. When did it become acceptable to set religious conversion of any kind as the price that frightened people must pay for their freedom?"

Is it not possible that when it is said and done that it won't actually have the opposite effect?

We are no better. We let thousands of our children go hungry and without health care every day. The largest growing population of homeless in America are children. What does that say about us? Would that justify foreign governments to come here and investigate us because we are allowing it to happen? Our own children turn to violence. They fall prey to gangs every day and commit horrendous crimes. So in essence, we ARE allowing our children to turn to violence and crime. What kind of morals and integrity do we have?

I don't believe we are in a position to start pointing fingers and I don't believe it is ou job to interfere.

So true. Big Bad's motives are only hatred
nm
To Those Who Question Obama Motives, An Update....sm

Read into it what you please, because that is what always happens:















 


















Obama AFP – US President Barack Obama speaks at Goettge Memorial Field House in Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North …


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.


"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."


He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.


"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."


The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.


On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.


Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.


Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.


Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."


Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."


Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."


"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."


Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.


Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.


He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."


___








 




Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.








































To Those Who Question Obama Motives, An Update....sm

Read into it what you please, because that is what always happens:


Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel


AFP – US President Barack Obama speaks at Goettge Memorial Field House in Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North …
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.


"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."


He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.


"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."


The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.


On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.


Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.


Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.


Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."


Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."


Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."


"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."


Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.


Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.


He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."


Thank you for explaining that...
Wondered how it passed the Democrats!  Thought it was some kind of conspiracy on both sides, which would be a disaster.  He wants this to stay as part of "law of the land" which is a terrific fear for everyone who loves real "freedom" and not the Bush type of "freedom spread around the world" LOL!  Give me plain old freedom here in the United States. If Iraq, or any other sovereign nation, wants freedom, they should fight for it themselves, or at least ASK to let us bomb them....I'm sorry, that's my sense of humor...:) terrible, terrible. 
Thanks for explaining it to me..... sm
I can see I may have upset you and I didn't mean to. Your opinion is your own, of course, but I would disagree with when an embryo starts to live. Being "radically pro-life" as I said I was, I naturally believe that a baby is a baby at conception. But that's just my belief. The truth of the matter is that the heart starts to beat at around the 21st day from conception, so with a beating heart, would that not be considered a living person?

There really is no need to answer me because I don't want to get into a battle over when life begins because our view points are so vastly different and feelings could be hurt. Thank you for sharing your point of view with me. It does help me understand the different mindsets as they relate to abortion.
The American people should always question motives of the government...
Motives of politicians are typically to help themselves. Notice how Obama left Unions off of his special interest bring it on list? Could it be because they contributed huge amounts of money to his campaign? Just a thought.
Looks like you do not want to take a stab at explaining
Buffet and Soros manipulated the entire economic picture all by their lonesome. If all you want to do is cram more socialist rhetoric into the dialog, then it is a waste of time to address it....especially since it is coming from a faction of votes who do not have the foggiest notion of the meaning of the term, much less the historical structure of their own tax system. BTDT.
Really good post, we all know he will be under a magnifying glass, and all his motives and ideals,,,
will be questioned, debated, and scrutinized more than any other president. He has only been in office a week and look at all the criticism/second-guessing etc that is going on....folks tend to forget that the last time we were in a real depression of this magnitude, FDR did not turn it around overnight, took most of his first three terms, and then some, and then WWII actually acted as economic stimulus for this country (very bad way to boost domestic economics!). But if we are looking at things unbiased and just know human nature, yes, he will be held to a higher standard, but I personally believe that this man can definitely uphold that standard and supercede it, just my own observations of his intellect and insight. Thanks for posting the article!
Google has an official explaining for it.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html
Don't waste your breath explaining it to them
They will only interpret everything you say as bashing. All logic is lost on some people.

Obama was explaining to his fundraisers

why PA et. al. were not showing their support for him, going for Hilary, and he told them the truth.  I am from PA, and people around here are bitter that their jobs are outsourced and having financial problems.  The importance of his statement is that he was/is exactly right, and he does have his finger on the pulse of the people and does relate to common folks.  That's the point of "cling to their guns and religion."  He was not being condescending or demeaning, just trying to explain to his fundraisers why he was not doing so well in PA.  


As for writing two books "before he accomplished anything," seems to me you are bitter and cling to your religion and guns.  What the h--- is wrong with writing books, with being intelligent?  Is being intelligent and able to write two books a curse? Give me a break with the phony accusations.


The prior poster was explaining the church ministries
those ministries were consistent with Obama's life experiences, his political career and his current campaign platform. Voters like a consistent candidate with a consistent message, a concept that seems to elude many McCain supporters and certainly goes right over the heads of his campaign managers.

The previous poster was implying that perhaps members of the congregation, both past and present, find value and purpose in those ministries and often choose to participate in the church ministries that service their immediate communities and benefit those who are in the most need wherein, according to Matthew's gospel, the Spirit of Jesus dwells. Some of us really like that about Obama and find it admirable that he embodies this decidedly Christian principle and understands that that we all will be judged by the measure of how we treat the least among us.

My best guess is that the previous poster does not necessarily believe that Christian evangelical pastors of any and all colors are exactly void of fanaticism, bigotry and hatred. Rev Wright certainly may have appeal to some members of that congregation whose core beliefs he reflects, just as John Hagee has a certain appeal to some of his congregation. Having said that, there is still no direct evidence that Hagee reflects McCain's core beliefs any more than there is evidence that Wright reflects Obama's...except in the minds of those who are in charge of the hate patrol.
It doesnt work. Link explaining some things.
nm
Please review the Iraq Liberation Act and the speech given by clinton in 1988 explaining why he bomb
Operation Desert Fox. Bush, nor conservatives, were the first to call for regime change in Iraq. Clinton signed in a LAW calling for just that. I posted the act below. Both sides have called for regime change, only one side made it a law...that would be yours. Can we move on to another subject now?