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

The commend from Russia was directed at the new...

Posted By: sam on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: Correct if I am wrong, but at the moment this is - President Bush's problem...sm

administration, not the current one. So it is not Bush's problem. Bush admin reacted the way they should have to the aggression in Georgia...and yes, I think Georgia was aimed at the election. Do you not remember Joe Biden going over there because he "friends" with the Georgian President? Came back denouncing the invasion. How long after that was he pegged for VP? Yeah, I would say the Russians were doing a little water testing.

I wish I shared your optimism about Obama. In sincerely wish I did. I sincerely wish he would take a look at Russia and realize that Marxist socialism does not work. But every torchbearer of Marxism that has come down the pike really believes that he will be the one to make it work. Sigh. Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

All that being said...again. I wish I shared your optimism. But history should tell you, Russians are not interested in diplomacy. They are interested in world domination and they want to see if Obama will allow them to swallow it up, one little piece at a time. We shall see.


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

I commend you
for doing what you feel is the best thing for this country. That is the best we all can do.  As things play out I think we will all have a better idea of how to go about changing Washington D.C.
and I commend you and your family
You are to be honored, and I do honor you all.
I commend you on your noble efforts...
but I say again...unless you direct your rhetoric toward the people who obviously are in direct opposition to your way of thinking (terrorists) and changing their minds...ohhh, but you said didn't you...leave it to God to change their minds while you concentrate on your fellow Americans, i.e., preach to the choir, the safe and warm route. That makes any real committment to peace, as you say you have, appear very hollow to me. But, I am sure as with Sarandon, Penn, and the Code Pink ladies, they rather prefer their heads attached to their shoulders and protesting in the comfort of a free country paid for by the blood of patriots, rather than taking their cause to the real enemies of this country. Whereas you have said you don't care if someone cuts your head off...I daresay the above mentioned would not share that sentiment.

And as a side note, Hanoi Jane, in my opinion, should be in a jail cell for treason.

I commend you on your charitable works and have said so before. However, that was not and never has been the basis of the criticism. I have said in posts before that I commend your charitable work, and I have, as I said I would, looked into service dogs for disabled vets. But what I do or do not do is not at issue here, as I am not using it as a badge to tell everyone how good I am or how committed I am. You seem to want to enumerate that for me to somehow take the attention away from the core issue I was trying to address....
...I was talking specifically about the *peace* movement, and why you and others do not take the *peace* movement to the real enemies of peace. Unless of course you believe that your fellow Americans are more an enemy of peace than the terrorists are. Which is probably true...when Democrats when polled 49% say they do not want the surge to succeed and 51% say they are not sure they want the surge to succeed. That says it all in my opinion. All that tells me is that 49% of Democrats polled are antiAmerican and 51% have not as yet decided for America or against her.

Have a good day.
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
I commend your post for not resorting to name calling..
it's nice to see an adult conversation on this board for a change. We all have our own opinions and can express them; that's the beauty of America. You make several good points in your post. It's too bad we have to be restricted to these 2 candidates who really aren't the best qualified on either side. I still don't know who I am voting for yet; neither one has talked about anything that is of value to me and a write in may just be the way I go this election.
Is that directed towards me or JRR?
I just commented on the post, and I don't think what I posted deserved the outright insult that JRR threw at me.  However, I'm an adult and can take it, however, obviously JRR is not a mature adult and can only hurl childish insults. 
Who is this directed at (sm)
The OP or "me" who posted the rant about McCain??
vs, I don't think this response was directed at you...nm

That wasn't directed at you
I just view Obama that way. Sorry
Not directed at you, Kiki, just the guy who wrote....
this article...verrryyy slanted.

But all it says to me is that she is doing the job as governor of her state to take care of her people and it looks like she was doing a mighty fine job. Hence the 83% approval rating.

What I would be interested in is the same author looking at the lower 48, and seeing how much of their profits are off the top before a product leaves their state? I would imagine it is very close to that. It is a governor's job to look out for the people of the state, and she obviously put her people first. More power to her! If she pushes for the same principle on a federal level, we will do nothing but benefit.

Good grief, this person castigates the woman for doing her job and doing it well. At least she didn't siphon off a chunk for herself like many other corrupt politicians..it went right back to the people of her state.

And the interviewer could not resist the class warfare jibe: "Well I guess that means the Alaskan people are more important than we are..blah, blah, blah."

If this guy lived in Alaska he would be singing a different tune...sour grapes, class warfare. Typical.

Yep, I would be interested to know how much revenue from oil from Texas, oil from Oklahoma, coal from West Virginia...how much of that revenue is kept at the state level? My guess is as much as Palin kept in Alaska from Alaska's oil.

This article just reinforced for me why her influence is needed in Washington. She looks after the people who put her in office. Exactly what she SHOULD be doing IMHO.


Historically, Ivy league colleges are directed
towards whites so her saying that is not a shock. How would you feel if the roles were reversed, and you were the minority. I still do not feel that it was racist and I certainly do not get out of it that she is bitter or arrogant.


This was directed at Bradley, but hey, 2 birds, 1 stone
Truth be told, you guys have morphed from angry hate mob to sore losers to disappearing desperados, all in one week. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
My comment was directed at "me" and she understood me...sm
I was hoping everyone would come together, no matter who wins, echoing her thoughts. She understood what I meant.

No offense intended.
The word hate is directed at you, gt. Get a clue as to your hatred. nm

time ojut, SS, My post was directed to Get Smart/sm
I agree with your comment about JM's goose egg and everything else you have posted today.
Intolerance goes both ways, and your post should be directed to all on this board....sm
not just the conservatives.

In fact, you yourself, have posted to the extreme pro-Obama, if I'm not mistaken. (unless I'm thinking of someone with a similar name, if so, a thousand pardons).


Depending on which day you come, either side of the political agenda has their say and sway, way to the extreme.


Some of us tend to be in the middle, sometimes more to the right, sometimes more to the left.



Myself, these days, I'm sick and tired of McCain, and still can't stand Obama.


But you and anybody else are free to have your say.


Just don't attempt to say it's all one-sided, because it's not. And if you were fair, it's usually one-sided in favor of Obama, not McCain.


I, personally, am sick of politics in general, all ways around, with no good candidate, really, on either side of the spectrum.
You're right, I cannot change your beliefs, not directed solely at you (sm)
But at anyone who supports partial birth abortion really.  It is just an overwhelmingly horrible thought to me.
Russia
Was wondering what you all thought of Russia's response to President-elect Obama.  Are any of you concerned about that guy more so now than before?
Can they see Russia from their house?

I have always been worried about Russia
There was a great quote from 40 or 20 years ago, from a Russian professor, I'll have to search for it. But, basically it said something like, "We will bring them in with good will and kindness, and then we will crush them with our iron fist!"

However, the issue with Russia doesn't raise any concerns over Obama with me. Maybe he can use a little diplomacy instead of just trying to bomb everything off the map, lol!
Yes, I am worried about Russia.

I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried.  When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times.  Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia.   Yes, I am concerned about Russia.


Russia's opinion

We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?


 


I brought up Russia............sm
because it was an example of basically an exact opposite from what America is. You seem to want to live completely opposite than Americans have lived for the 150 (give or take) years before Madelyn Murray O'Hare started raising Cain (no pun intended) about prayer in schools, etc. While I realize atheists did exist prior to her time, for the most part, they pretty much "lived and let live" much as Christians did with respect to co-existing with them. That is more what I would call "tolerance" rather than getting all up in arms because God's name appears on the currency that puts a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back.

As to the issue of Christian gays and lesbians, I really feel that is a subject more for the Faith forum and would happily discuss it with you there sometime as I have opinions on that as well. (are you surprised? LOL)

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. Unless you are married to a woman, then of course I feel your marriage is valid and certainly not worthless. You are really stretching the limits of common sense on this subject with your suppositions.

Your next to last statement is absolutely correct. There is only one way for true Christianity and that is based solely on the teachings in the Bible. People who do not believe the Bible do see it as divisive and intolerant, but like Paul said "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe." Again, another fascinating subject for the Faith forum, but I would state that it is not Christians who seek to divide this nation but unbelievers who do because of their unbelief.

With all that said, JtBB, I will say this. I find you a very interesting person and really enjoy debating issues with you and hope you realize that just because our opinions clash some, okay most, of the time does not mean that I don't like you. :o)
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
It ain't Russia I'm immediately worried about...
xx
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:

1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.

A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.

RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.

I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.

That is the modus operandi of Russia....
and probably one of the early tests Biden was talking about. I don't think it came as a surprise to him. I am not concerned about Russia's response...I am concerned about Obama's response to them, but we will have to wait awhile to find that out, I am assuming, since he has not formally taken the job yet.

I do think, however, that Russia's response to a McCain win would have been different. They don't need to test him...they already know where he stands (I looked in his eyes and saw KGB).
Venezuela and Russia are going to hold

military manuevers near Venezuela.


 


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html


This is what Russia thinks will happen

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html


Because of our economy, United States will be split:  The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc.  As for Alaska?  Could be Russia's for the taking. 


What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin.  Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska.  Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.   


You might find Russia more to your liking......... sm
I'm sure they don't have a church on every corner, "in Gdo we trust" isn't on their money, and if you are lucky enough to even have a TV then I doubt there is a preacher on it. Can't say for sure if their leader knows his anatomy from that of Mother Earth's or not, though.

As for what the right is sacrificing, how about our children being taught in school that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, that it is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle and not an amoral, sinful lifestyle. Or how about having to tell you daughter 'no' when she wants to buy a 'toy' out of those vending machines so thoughtfully placed in every gas station restroom across the country and then have to explain to her why she can't have one. We have to explain to our children what they are seeing when the news runs a story about 2 men or 2 women getting "married" and why it is not acceptable to us.

If gay people want some kind of legally binding union, fine. Let them have it. I'm not the one who has to answer for it, but please don't parade it around on television for the rest of us to have to look at and please don't call it a "marriage." Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever other PC term you want to call it.
Russia's laughing at us, too. Thanks, Obama!
So much for those hopes of Obama 'repairing our image' in the world.

China's laughing at us.

France and England are scolding us.

And Russia's already written our obituary.

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."

Here's a link to the article in Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
I heard this morning russia is buying up
iceland's debts, guess they are in real trouble. supposedly could be a change in the balance of power (not a good one if you know what I mean)...?
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.

You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.

We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.

When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran



By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01


President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.


Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.


The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.


In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.


At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.


You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.


Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.


Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.


The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.


Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.


But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.


Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.


The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.


Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.


But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.


Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.


The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.


The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.


Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.


This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.


Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.


The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m

meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....


http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0


Foreign investors. China and Russia insisted on Fannie Mac bail out.
dd