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

That just shows the level of insensitivity....

Posted By: sam on 2008-08-31
In Reply to: You got a lotta nerve being so self-righteous - about slander. Sigh yourself. nm

this is an anonymous posting board. You people have posted nastiness about someone and named them. Dailykrap posted it where the entire nation can look at it. You have invaded the privacy of a 16-year-old girl who has done nothing to deserve it and made her public fodder. Perhaps you are proud of that. I cannot imagine that you would be, yet you attack me and support those who would do such a thing. Amazing.


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

Unfortunately, to get to that level he'd have to
Hee
On one level, it's rather
Think about it. Here we have Evans, Editor of Newsweek and one who is in the vanguard of elitist agnosticism (remember "The Decline and Fall of Christian America"?) who seems to acknowledge, at least tacitly, the need for some sort of God to mediate and reconcile the nations.

So far, Evans has only managed to stagger toward a rather pitiful concept of God in the form of a being as miserably inadequate as Obama, but perhaps there's hope that he'll mature to an adult notion of God, which is a bit more sophisticated.
What's different is that on a state level in CA,
in the form of ballot measures, ballot initiatives, propositions or referendums. They can be heard in the California Supreme Court on any or all of these bases and are entitled to seek relief.
Just above your level of showing your
stupidity for trying so hard to appear to be intelligent.
One would have to have a certain level of intelligence to be bored. sm

You are the weakest link.  Buh-bye now.


Thank you so much for your concern about my energy level.

That's the only level pubs will react to.
Put your money where your mouth is. You want real issues. Just post a request for a list and let's get started.
How can you retain something at 2009 level....
when it is 2008?

With the economy the way it is, he CANNOT implement his health care plan. If he does, the fragile economy will tank. I am not an economist and I have sense enough to know that.

The estate tax is the most unfair tax ever levied. All that money has been taxed already, and they want to tax it again just because someone dies. It should be repealed. That is not a Republican or democrat thing. It is just wrong.

Think about this...when the stock market lost 700 points that day...many of the americans earning more than $250,000 lost a ton of money. And he is NOW going to roll back tax cuts for them? Is he so naive or want to get elected SO bad that he does not understand that most of the small businesses in this country fall in that category? And moderate-sized businesses? Who do you think are the employers in this country? Can he not see that will result in businesses closing or downsizing or offshoring just to SURVIVE?

I guess he doesn't. And that means he SHOULD NOT be President.
Also enjoys one-on-one ground-level
Wonder if she follows indigenous rule and only slays what she can eat? Not likely, considering her affinity for guns. What a gal, what a gal!
You don't need to attack me on a personal level... sm
by calling names.

I looked at your supporting web site and find that it is a Democratic web site, so I automatically discard it as biased.

I still am seeking an answer for my original question. What has changed? His mind, in my estimation, is not a suitable answer as that does not address the FACT that he himself stated that he did not feel he was qualified to run for POTUS.

By the same token, if he can "change his mind" on an issue as important as being qualified for POTUS, what is to keep him from changing his mind on all the promises and pipedreams he was selling while he was running. Oh wait....I think that is already happening. He is already stating that he cannot fulfill all his promises and he is not even in office yet.

If he is the "best" that this country has to offer, we're in worse shape than I thought we were.
They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.

Starting at the community level......... sm
is a great thing to do and I am proud of you for the work you do. I have read here before some of the things you are involved in, and you are making a difference in your community. I'll be right here, ready and willing! LOL
You sank to their level but beyond, and continue to do so.
I give up.
The playing field has never been more level!

Thanks to affirmative action, white heterosexual males cannot get jobs especially when competing with a person classified as a minority.  Mintorities get college scholarships and acceptance into good schools so universities can meet their quota.  It's ridiculous!  There is a black man in the White House --- I think affirmative action has done its job!


It's time for everyone, no matter their race, be treated equally.  The best PERSON for the job should get the job.  The best student with the best transcipts should get the admission letter and scholarship.  There shouldn't be quotas to fill.  NOBODY should get preferential treatment anymore! 


Good for you....don't stoop to that level!!
x
Oh gt, one would have to go a long way to reach YOUR level of hatred. nm

The level of maturity in producing that clip
is just astonishing!
You sound like one of the more level headed posters here
I'm glad you don't hate him. Disagreeing with his viewpoints and policies is one thing, but I'm reading a lot of posts and you can tell a lot of people really hate him. I don't agree with some of his issues. I don't agree with some of McCain's issues. I think your also one of the first posters who said anything good about McCain. What just really worries me about McCain is his attitude, his mean temper, and his readiness to send us to war anywhere.

Oh, I think I may have not quite said it right in my original post. I wasn't blaming oil companies and CEOs for the mess we are in, I was stating (or trying to state) that they are the ones who decide who our next president will be (that and you know that secret group that meets every year "behind closed doors"). I still have very high doubts that the "people" pic our president (but I could be wrong of course).
Take a good look at your level headed poster...nm
000000
On a level playing field that would be correct...
this is not a level playing field. I don't see her encouraging Obama to do town hall meetings with McCain...and after 18 months running for the #1 seat, he just this past month sat down with someone who was not in the tank for his candidacy. You really don't see how lopsided this is? Obama being inteviewed by the lambs and the left wanting to feed her to the wolves.
Mocking SP delivers the message on a level
respond well to colloquial discourse and positively bristle at the introduction of serious dialog on those doggone pesky issues.
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.

I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
There are also those more level-headed Obama opponents
the "country first" message of the McCain campaign and who realize how dangerously destructive this divisive rhetoric can be. They have shown the courage and wisdom to embrace the outcome of the election and made the decision to MOVE FORWARD along with the rest of us. That would account for the additional support reflected in the 75%.
You sound a lot more clear and level headed than most on this board...
even in your drug-induced state! Feel better soon!
JTBB - If you find a higher-level forum where
intellect is respected and informed debate is possible, please post that info a time or 2. I'm looking for a spot like that myself and this sure ain't it.
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976

Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down


By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01


A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.


In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.


The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.


With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.


"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.


Who Gets Abortions?


Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.


The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.


Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:


· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.


· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.


· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.


This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.


· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.


· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.


Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.


· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.


About the Data


There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.


Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.


Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.


Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.


Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·


Resources


For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."


For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.


Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Abramoff Attended staff-level meetings at Bush White House
White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2006


(AP) The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.

Abramoff had a few staff-level meetings at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.

Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that, he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon.

McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings. We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition, he said.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with three other Democratic senators, wrote Bush a letter Tuesday asking for an accounting of Abramoff's personal contacts with Bush administration officials and acts that may have been undertaken at his request. The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale, they wrote.

McClellan has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, but corrected himself Tuesday to say there were only two _ in 2001 and 2002.

McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible the two met at the holiday receptions.

Abramoff was one of Bush's top fundraisers, having brought in at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign and earning the honorary title pioneer. The campaign took $6,000 of the contributions _ which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he represented _ and donated it to the American Heart Association. But the campaign has not returned the rest of the money Abramoff raised.


No it shows that I know something
you haven't bothered to check out for yourself.

France was right about IRAQ.

And WE IGNORED HITLER's atrocities until OUR economics were at stake, THEN we did the right thing, but NOT BEFORE.


Maybe it shows
how "frugal" the McCain/Palin ticket would be in the White House, you reckon???  So Mrs. O's dress looked like it came from a yard sale?  So what?  She is clean and she is neat, that's all I require.  Why should candidates have to "look like they came from Saks Fifth Avenue to impress people?"  I used to like to go in Saks in Houston when I lived there just to see how the upper crust lived.   I did actually make purchases...............they had the most fabulus truffles you ever sank your teeth in........my weakness. t I would indulge even though they cost $6 EACH and that was back in the 80s.  Lord knows what they cost now.
It just shows the

true character of our president-elect.  He is stepping up to the rudderless ship regardless of the consequences.  His presidency is not a desire for power, a desire to upstage daddy, or a way to ensure future big bucks giving speeches or sitting on a board of a corporation.  He is doing it simply for the love of his country.  Bless him.


 


Where would we end up if everyone of us shows off
what looks good on us???????
I think this shows...
how ignorant so many in this country are to our own history. I guess that's why we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
This shows you exactly how much you know about the terrorists. sm
And THAT has been the worst part about all this.  Bush hatred has not only fried you to crispy critters, it has made you dangerously ignorant. 
i'm trying to pull that up and it shows
not sure what is going on.

You ask me about fear? I do believe things can and will get better. This is not something that is going to happen overnight and to be honest with you, I believe it will be worse with Obama.... Regarding the economy, there is a lot of fingerpointing and obviously I myself cannot be sure where exactly this started but we have had a democratic congress.
Pretty much shows
what we could expect from his administration.  More lunacy.  He wanted to win at all costs and he no doubt thought Palin would deliver Clinton supporter's votes.  After that fiasco how anyone can think he will turn this country around is beyond me.
This one shows him more clearly - he says it toward the end of the clip (sm)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&NR=1
why delete? it shows a pic
of a radical looking Obama and a soldier McCain???? What's the matter my liberal friend? Don't like the truth? Is it NOT obama in his true form and not mccain in HIS true form? Maybe you object to them using a picture that doesn't portray a Messiah look?
Nope, sure can't. When God shows me
I just gotta plow right on through.
Class certainly shows.

The UK presents diplomatic gifts of great antiquity, value  and meaning and in return we  hand them, what?  Plastic model planes?   Talk about a low-rent reception!  Yeah, I guess we  really are illustrating that we don't care enough to give the very best.  


Is also shows how much you know about ethics and morality....
You appear to be a fool.  An unethical fool.
I find most politicians on these shows

respond with rehearsed speech, or just do not answer the question. On Hardball, Chris will say answer the question, yes or no, over and over and over and whoever just goes off on whatever tangent.


 


i think for one reason it shows he is not a judgmental...
hypocrite like some of you posting here. This from the party of tolerance? What a load of bullhockey.
definitely shows poor judgement
xx
Just shows Fox DOES show both sides....
she let the other side have it too about their dishonest ads...though you probably won't find that part on Huffington Post.
It seems to me that this study shows that conservatives (sm)
are MORE concerned about others than democrats. They see a picture of SOMEONE ELSE who is hurt or dead and they react more than the democrats. I used to think of myself as being fairly liberal, but if that means being associated with the type of people many of the democrats who post on here appear to be, then no thanks, I'll call myself conservative. Actually I always vote for the candidate I agree with most, regardless of party.
Knock yourself out, there. Shows just how much respect
x
Just shows that majority of USA no longer truly
nm
i didn't write that - shows what you don't know
x
All talk shows gripe about everybody, not just him

They griped about Bush, McCain, Palin, the other Bush, Clinton, you name it. They are fair game and you should know that. The pot shots are to get more viewers, get laughs, or just let their own feelings out.


They are not griping about O. In fact, most of the news media has put him in a pedestal since the beginning. 


Another pub shows his true colors....(sm)

check this out:


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/29/armey/