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

Well by all means...throw the whole country...

Posted By: sam on 2008-11-03
In Reply to: Obama : McCain - nnn

to the dogs because he has a dynamic mentality. By ALL means. lolol.


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

Not in this country! It means bigger government, more
You want free thinking, you must mean "independent", as if independent thinker, thinking for yourself, not told how to think!

No. I love the country side in Alabama...I'm a country girl...nm

This is what happens when you throw a
Different strokes for different folks. This is what democracy looks like. Deal with it. Not taking the abortion bait. Take that argument back to the church where it belongs.
They did everything but throw

cabbages and rotten eggs at the guy.  Where do you get the 'nads to stand up there and keep sellin' when the customers just ain't buyin'?  And whether he's one of the 'good ones' or not, he sounds just like every other politician, doesn't he?  'I've devoted my life to service.....You're mad.  I hear you and Washington hears you.'   Riiight!  I hope we don't lose our fury and momentum before next year.  A good out with the old/in with the new dustup in 2010 would have them shaking in their shoes for 2012. 


throw him to the wolves
Hey, I have an idea, lets gnaw off the foot of the fool who got us into this mess into the first place.  Took a country with a surplus, a happy time for all, respect throughout the world and got us into a situation we will not get out of for years to come, if ever..Better yet, lets throw him to the people and lets tar, feather and string him up.
false. Throw something

else against the wall, may be it will stick.


 


brb -going to go throw up my lunch now.
nm
Then you'll throw a fit about having
to pay this woman's medical bills, support her subsidized housing, feeding and clothing the kid........make up your MINDS. It's a shame she didn't have the money to abort this fetus safely.
Say one more word and I will throw up! nm
.
After we throw the bums out

Maybe we should acknowlege that whoever volunteers for the job has ulterior motives. 


What if we then select our candidates at random, like we do jurors for jury duty.  We select a slate of candidates that are average people with average lives, give them the chance to decline or get excused for good reason, then give them time to present a platform and vote on which one of them gets the office.  Derails the good old boy network completely.  We couldn't guarantee the new candidates wouldn't be greedy, but their greed would at least be less organized and not part of the sophisticated behind the scenes network that exists today.


I'm sorry but for this judge to throw

out the tests for those firerighters who studied hard and earned those promotions and didn't get them merely because they were all white with one hispanic man.  To me...that is racism right there.  They didn't get the promotions because of their skin color.  Had they been a more motley crew of races, they would have gotten those promotions.  It is truly a sad day when hard work and studying doesn't benefit you because your skin color isn't that of a minority. 


I'm all for equal rights between the races and all of these firefighters were given the same studying materials and the same amount of time to study.  How can you take away those promotions from the people who studied hard and scored the highest merely because most of them are white? 


This doesn't present a very good opinion of this judge so far to me.  She also made a comment about how with her experience and her being a latino women, she could make better decisions than a white male.  Racism?  Hello?  If  a white man had said that he could make better decisions than a black man, woman, or latino.....OMG.....the race card would have been thrown out and that would have been the end of his career.  Why is it that minorities are allowed to say racist things and be racist and that is okay, but the moment a white person says something remotely racist.......that is the end of that person's career.  More double standards.


You said it - and any other Clinton throw-aways
What is up with all this???? They did enough damage when they were in there before. Albright was one of the most useless secretary of state and countries held little respect for her. She made the country a laughing stock before Bush ever got in there.
How much does it cost to throw a party?
Look, I don't care if Obama's inaugaration party is costing 21 million, but in the light of where our economy is right now, do you think it's a good idea? I mean, can't you have a good party for around 10 million? This is NOT a political question. I'm not attacking Obama, it's more of an economic question.
Personally, I want to throw up every time the
nm
McCain throw tantrum and cancels

With all the hoop-lah about Obama "refusing" to submit to interview with Focks, seems McCain is throwing another temper tantrum (which I did see on CNN, but could not find to include in this post.  He cancelled his scheduled appearance on Larry King over what he considered to be an "over-the-top" inerview between Campbell Brown and Tucker Bounds. 


 


Here's a link to an article about the cancellation.  I could not get good audio on their link to the interview video, so I am providing this second link where I could:


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/02/mccain-cancel-cnn/


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212194.php


 


Any comments from the gallery? 


Dems throw flags in garbage
Click the link below.  Tsk, tsk, tsk.  How unpatriotic.
A couple of facts sure seem to throw JM's flock
su
why don't u just throw yourself on the floor and kick your feet
talk about childish - I never called you anything until you called me  "an old hag" - so throw your little tantrum and try to convince yourself how "real" you actually are. Actions speak louder than words and..........well, you might have a case of mistaken identity here - I don't harass anyone - I stay out of the petty pssing matches. Get all flustered up over what you consider SACRED - who cares???? I don't. And no, I DON'T have to agree with you or anyone else for that matter and I don't give a flying fk if you agree with me.
Hurry up Fitzgerald..Im waiting to throw a party!
 It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby
    By Frank Rich
    The New York Times

    Sunday 16 October 2005


    There hasn't been anything like it since Martha Stewart fended off questions about her stock-trading scandal by manically chopping cabbage on The Early Show on CBS. Last week the setting was Today on NBC, where the image of President Bush manically hammering nails at a Habitat for Humanity construction site on the Gulf Coast was juggled with the sight of him trying to duck Matt Lauer's questions about Karl Rove.


    As with Ms. Stewart, Mr. Bush's paroxysm of panic was must-see TV. The president was a blur of blinks, taps, jiggles, pivots and shifts, Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post. Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in Psycho. Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.


    That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.


    Mr. Wilson and his wife were trashed to protect that larger plot. Because the personnel in both stories overlap, the bits and pieces we've learned about the leak inquiry over the past two years have gradually helped fill in the über-narrative about the war. Last week was no exception. Deep in a Wall Street Journal account of Judy Miller's grand jury appearance was this crucial sentence: Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group.


    Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.


    Of course, the official Bush history would have us believe that in August 2002 no decision had yet been made on that war. Dates bracketing the formation of WHIG tell us otherwise. On July 23, 2002 - a week or two before WHIG first convened in earnest - a British official told his peers, as recorded in the now famous Downing Street memo, that the Bush administration was ensuring that the intelligence and facts about Iraq's W.M.D.'s were being fixed around the policy of going to war. And on Sept. 6, 2002 - just a few weeks after WHIG first convened - Mr. Card alluded to his group's existence by telling Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Saddam Hussein: From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.


    The official introduction of that product began just two days later. On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in A Pretext for War, writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage.


    The administration's doomsday imagery was ratcheted up from that day on. As Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post would determine in the first account of WHIG a full year later, the administration's escalation of nuclear rhetoric could be traced to the group's formation. Along with mushroom clouds, uranium was another favored image, the Post report noted, because anyone could see its connection to an atomic bomb. It appeared in a Bush radio address the weekend after the Rice-Cheney Sunday show blitz and would reach its apotheosis with the infamously fictional 16 words about uranium from Africa in Mr. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address on the eve of war.


    Throughout those crucial seven months between the creation of WHIG and the start of the American invasion of Iraq, there were indications that evidence of a Saddam nuclear program was fraudulent or nonexistent. Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence to back up uranium claims, took place nearly a year before the president's 16 words. But the truth never mattered. The Bush-Cheney product rolled out by Card, Rove, Libby & Company had been bought by Congress, the press and the public. The intelligence and facts had been successfully fixed to sell the war, and any memory of Mr. Bush's errant 16 words melted away in Shock and Awe. When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took responsibility for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG.


    It was not until the war was supposedly over - with Mission Accomplished, in May 2003 - that Mr. Wilson started to add his voice to those who were disputing the administration's uranium hype. Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut him down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us.


    It's long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel. When Mr. Rove was asked on camera by ABC News in September 2003 if he had any knowledge of the Valerie Wilson leak and said no, it was only hours before the Justice Department would open its first leak investigation. When Scott McClellan later declared that he had been personally assured by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that they were not involved with the leak, the case was still in the safe hands of the attorney general then, John Ashcroft, himself a three-time Rove client in past political campaigns. Though Mr. Rove may be known as Bush's brain, he wasn't smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald.


    Bush's Brain is the title of James Moore and Wayne Slater's definitive account of Mr. Rove's political career. But Mr. Rove is less his boss's brain than another alliterative organ (or organs), that which provides testosterone. As we learn in Bush's Brain, bad things (usually character assassination) often happen to Bush foes, whether Ann Richards or John McCain. On such occasions, Mr. Bush stays compassionately above the fray while the ruthless Mr. Rove operates below the radar, always separated by a layer of operatives from any ill behavior that might implicate him. There is no crime, just a victim, Mr. Moore and Mr. Slater write of this repeated pattern.


    THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.


    Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another victory for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.


Mindboggling that republicans would rather throw the cells in the trash...sm
Than put them to use to save a life and in the same sentence call themselves PROlife. I'd really like to understand this reasoning.

I don't agree with cloning or using aborted fetuses for this research (the latter because I am a prolifer), but when an embryo is headed for the dumpster why not use it for research and medicine.

I saw a MJF ad run on Fox News Channel and it was probably the only ad I've taken seriously. He's dedicated to finding a cure.

In answer to AG's question, why do celebrities become the spokeperson's for different causes? They have the finances, fame and connections to rally support. Sure, there are smaller organizations out there, but many would not get the air time or financial support as MJF.

With great power comes great responsibility.
GOP Rep Michele Bachmann would like throw us back 60 years
un-American Activities Committee to investigate alleged anti-American sentiments and subversive agendas of House and Senate members.  Raise you hand if you want a republican committe to define patriotism, what it means to be an American and to institutionalize punitive measures for people who do not fall in line? 
I wouldn't trust Madeline Albright any further than I can throw her. nm
nm
So you solution is to throw the kids of the great unwashed under the bus?
Wow. I'm glad your not my mom.
How juvenile...why don't you throw yourself on the floor and kick your feet
x
Let's riot and throw bricks through bank windows

You can't throw money at this problem and expect it to be fixed.
Spending and spending and then more spending isn't the answer - it just creates more of the same problems. It's true that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and that lost him a lot of support and, as you stated, created quite a bit of the mess we're in today. But Obama's spending really isn't doing anything to jumpstart the economy - okay, maybe in the short-term, but none of the money he's spending is sustainable.

Example: Part of his stimulus money went to pay for the salaries of police officers in Columbus, Ohio. For one year. The City of Columbus is broke and Mayor Coleman says that if things don't turn around soon, jobs that are going to be cut are... guess what? Policemen and firefighters. Even if those officers make it to next year, the city can't afford to take over paying thier salaries after that. Is Obama going to pay for it next year and the year after that?

When you're in debt, the first thing you learn is that you can't spend your way out of it. You have to cut back, "trim the fat", and learn to live on a tighter budget. What burns me is that none of the politicians in DC understand that because they don't have to live it - they do the majority of what they do on our dime.

It's not about doing nothing, but it's about doing what's right and since no one in DC even reads the spending packages they keep signing, you can't say even they know what's right anymore.
You can't throw money at this problem and expect it to be fixed.
Spending and spending and then more spending isn't the answer - it just creates more of the same problems. It's true that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and that lost him a lot of support and, as you stated, created quite a bit of the mess we're in today. But Obama's spending really isn't doing anything to jumpstart the economy - okay, maybe in the short-term, but none of the money he's spending is sustainable.

Example: Part of his stimulus money went to pay for the salaries of police officers in Columbus, Ohio. For one year. The City of Columbus is broke and Mayor Coleman says that if things don't turn around soon, jobs that are going to be cut are... guess what? Policemen and firefighters. Even if those officers make it to next year, the city can't afford to take over paying thier salaries after that. Is Obama going to pay for it next year and the year after that?

When you're in debt, the first thing you learn is that you can't spend your way out of it. You have to cut back, "trim the fat", and learn to live on a tighter budget. What burns me is that none of the politicians in DC understand that because they don't have to live it - they do the majority of what they do on our dime.

It's not about doing nothing, but it's about doing what's right and since no one in DC even reads the spending packages they keep signing, you can't say even they know what's right anymore.
Sarcasm... isn't that what you were throwing around earlier? Just thought I'd throw some too.

Didn't realize you cornered the market.  But, hey, if you want some Bible verses, I can pitch a few of those too.


Sorry if I offended you, but I imagine the OP was perhaps a little offended at your insinuation that she was a paranoid lunatic.  Well, as momma always said, if you can't take the heat...


or


Don't dish it out if you can't eat it.


Yes killing this country - have you been out of the country the last 3 months or so
Don't you have a clue as to what is happening in America? Where have you been? Don't you listen to what is happening or are you still drinking the kool-aid. That time is over. Put the aid down and wake up. The country is being destroyed. These have been the worst 4 months in the history of bad presidents. Foreclosures are on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, 3+ trillion more in deficit and on the rise, companies shutting down, Clinton for SoS. Napolitano - one of the biggest tragedies to happen to America. The list goes on and on and on and on.

Dubya is not in office anymore. You think dubya "pulled the trigger", well the O keeps reloading it and continues to pull the trigger.
Yes, I have seen in the past few days the kind of party dems like to throw...
thanks, but no thanks. And what does Sarah Palin have in common with George Bush other than both are Republicans? None. But of course, there is that open-minded thing again...
I throw it right back at you: Blind, in denial, naive, conservative pub...nm
nm
Honey, happy people don't throw hissy fits on chat boards. Get
.
Stem Cells - I can't think of one reason why they should throw the extra cells away, rather than sav
x
I think you know what she means...nm

Oh, by all means, it is I who thank you.
''
This means nothing to me
I have seen this and it has been debated as naseum.

As far as winning in Iraq, I am not sure what we are supposed to win.


And please, don't EVER call me your DEAR again. Keep your patronizing on our own board.

Thank you.
It means nothing to you. sm
Yes, by all means, save your anger for being called dear when there it is posted in black and white what the antiwar movement did to our soldiers in Vietnam.  Lord love a duck, but I have seen it all now.
Oh, I know what it means....
It is just an uneducated, goofy thing to say...that's all.  And you should apologize to all those "grandmas" on this site who you just offended.  You are so negative!
Thanks - that means a lot
Was wondering if anyone would comment. I always question what the government feeds us, but I truly never have in my entire life ever heard our enemies say they hate us because we are free. I always think - how absurd. They just want us to leave them along and stop imposing our viewpoints on them. Thanks again.
I did not know what this means
I'm not sure if you're implying this is a good thing or not and because I didn't know what it means I looked it up. I'll write what I found out and then you can tell me if you think its a good thing or not.

Black theology refers to a variety of Christian theologies which has at its base in the liberation of the marginalized, especially the injustice done towards blacks in American and South African contexts. Black theology mixes liberation theology and the work of Paulo Freire with the civil rights and black power movements.

I had to keep researching certain terms in this because it was still confusing, so I looked up liberation theology and it states that liberation theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. Two of the starting points of Liberation theology are first, the question of the original sin, and second, the idea that Christians should make good use of the talents given by God, and that includes intelligence in a general sense, and in particular science.

I then looked up who Paulo Freire is and it says he was a brazilian educator and influential theorist of education. He became familiar with poverty and hunger during the 1929 depression and these experiences shaped his concerns for the poor and would help to construct his particular educational viewpoint.

There's way to much information on both these topics to write here, but to me it sounds like another positive for the Obama's Trinity Unity Church.
Sure you can. :) Means I am doing something right. lol. nm
nm
It means something to me. Obviously not to you....
stop reading my posts if they aggravate you so much. It is a free country. No one is forcing your little mouse to click but you.
Well, that certainly means you are NOT
me his character. Show me one close friend in his past without a shady background, one he does not have to defend. Everyone who has touched his life and made any sort of impression on him has warped his character. Yet, no one who is enamored with him seems to care. They do not care that he stands for nothing, they cannot tell you what his plans for this country are or how he is going to accomplish them. And, they certainly do not want to listen to anything from his past.
Ah, that means you definitely know one or more
xx
maybe she means
congress???
no it means
that I don't wish to spend the time to indulge you

By all means...............sm
let me get that door for you.
It means......
Why didn't you run for election, YOU MIGHT HAVE BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO BE ABLE TO EVEN TELL THE 44TH PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BARACK OBAMA, WHAT TO DO.

I guess that when it comes to foreign policy you are in the la-la-land.
It means I won't lie....
But because "several in your town" exist, presumably, that doesn't make you an expert except for maybe in your own grandiose dreams.
Oh, by all means...
Let's jump on this bandwagon instead of discussing the train wreck that IS in the White House.

And, to be honest, this post does NOT deserve to be on the political board. It has nothing to do with politics, just the sore winner Dems continuing to skewer the loser. Palin LOST, people. Let it go.

What she means to say....(sm)
is that I am one of a handful of liberals left on this board.  Most everyone else is a republican, so therefore anything I say on here is typically not understood, taken out of context, or simply replied to in terms of character assassination, like the post that I'm responding to now.  Just look down the board and you'll see what I'm talking about.