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

Why do pubs have such difficulty staying on task?

Posted By: sm on 2009-01-09
In Reply to: You mean like all the people in congress who just gave themselves pay raises - New Englander

Evidently smearing the dems is more important to you than equal pay for women. With this kind of tendency to self destruct, no wonder you folks lost so many elections.


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

Why do pubs have so much trouble staying on task?
I like facts. Troopergate has lots of them. Try reading it. Then try answering the questions. Challenge yourself. Get though one single entire post, begining to end, without trashing Obama. Can you handle that? Probably not, but give it your best shot. By the way, there is only one person here who you need to educate....and it ain't me, babe.
You seem to be having a little trouble staying on task.
Let's try this again. The subjct is guilt by association. The post you are answering listed Mc'Cain's associates as follows:

Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedo. Can you say Iran contra? How about dong business with terrorists (the arms seller AND the arms customer)?
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry and proud of it!
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.

Let me spell out the issue at hand. If we are to infer that Obama embodies the phuilisophies of each and every single person or organization that he has ever encountered dring the corse of his lifetime, then we can infer the same about McCain. Are you with me so far? an appropriate, direct and credible response would not include the word democrat in it. It would deal with the issue at hand and with the list of pub snakes McCain pals around with.
You evidently have a hard time staying on task.
if your mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, grandfather, husband or best friend cast a vote in the early election and passed away on November 4th, how would it make you feel if their votes were thrown out?
Pubs can't stay on task if their lives depended on it.
Americans don't elect issues wimps.
I guess I'm having a little difficulty seeing....
...how "disappoint me, break the law and damage your bodies as long as you do it at home" constitutes parental boundaries. Perhaps we just don't share the same definitions.

Either way, I have to congratulate you that your children are doing so well. Good job!
Then perhaps you might consider staying
.
i had trouble staying with what JM was saying -
it was rambling & almost incoherent.
Yes, and we need those dollars staying here too!
..
Crap. Dodd is staying on?

x


Yep. He's probably staying. Obama likes him. (nm)
x
I wish we could go back to the staying at home and
supporting our man kind of life.  I would love it. 
Whatever happened to staying on the subject? (sm)
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the original post -- but I guess Bush is just an embarrassment for the republican party.  I guess if I had supported a war criminal [aka -- that guy with a lower approval than Nixon (who resigned)] I wouldn't have anything to say on the subject either.
Speaking of staying on the subject...(sm)

why don't you try it for a change?  I believe the OP was about turnout at the tea parties, followed by the "crowds" and why the turned out.  (Just tell me if I start going to fast for ya).  So what do you do?  How about yet another mindless tantrum.  Yeah, those are getting old. 


Here's the point about Newt.  Newt has a record for voting for higher taxes as well as the bailout.  Other "leaders/organizers" of this little tea mission are lobbyists.  Any other time you would be screaming bloody murder about these guys, but now since Fixed Noise is sucking up to them, you are suddenly ready to jump over the cliff with them....and you want try to say that I can't think for myself?  Yeah right...get your wading boots out folks.


I am on task.
You answered your own challenge here. Of course you cannot reduce taxes, give tax breaks (or whatever other ill-considered literal read you may choose) on people who do not pay them. That would lead any person with a triple-digit IQ to conclude that he is referring to people currently paying taxes....wouldn't it? Your main premise is faulty, as in flawed, caput, no dice, etc. Let's state the obvious again, in case you weren't paying attention. You can't cut something that is not there. We agree on that one.

However, we not agree on your assertion that Obama is lying. According to you, any movement of wealth out of the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who didn't is redistribution of wealth. Perhaps those fat cat oil company CEOs and stockholders would not agree with your argument. The O windfall profit proposal is a one-time jump-start energy rebate aimed at economic stimulus for middle class families, who in case you haven't noticed lately, are having a helluva of time. It is not a permanent scheme where Americans become "collective owners" of the resource (decidedly more Marxist) as Palin's is...income sharing at its finest hour. There is a difference, all right, but not the one you are willing to concede.

Again, we see you dance around the issue of the long-established progressive tax structure question and just how is it socialist only when Obama reforms it? You cannot seem to answer that fundamental central issue, can you?

No, let's don't. Let's stay on task.
0
Again. Could you PLEASE stay on task.
!
Sorry. Just trying to stay on task.
Thread started out about hate speech, then turned toward lawsuit. Silly me. Do you always change the subject when you start to look stupid? The only plants at the SP rallies spring up from the seeds of bigotry and racism that come spilling out of her mouth every time she opens it...in the form of a crop of hateful ignorance. Must make you feel right proud.
You as well need to stay on task...
Fact. He has said he is going to give a tax break to 95% of the American people. 40% of the American people don't even pay federal taxes. How can you give a tax break to people who don't even pay taxes? In the form of a check. How ELSE is he going to do that? THAT is classic redistribution of wealth Marxist style. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to cut a lot of checks. YOU tell ME how he is going to do it.

As far as Palin...you really need to focus here. Yes, she did a windfall profits task. And yes, she distributed it to the Alaskan people. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, rich and poor alike, every single citizen of Alaska. That is NOT redistribution of wealth. See the difference? And it is not taking from the tax coffers that everyone in Alaska paid into...which is what Obama is going to do. He is going to tax small businesses and the so-called rich (the threshold for which gets smaller every day) and redistribute that to 95% of people...40% of whom don't even pay federal income tax.

Marxist re-distribution of wealth.

No soup for you either, but plenty of ice cream.
That's why Osamabama moved to Chicago insteady of staying in NY.
nm
Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
I think you're the one who needs to stay on task

you even asked it.  Go back up a few posts and you'll see where I said:


"I'd say the same about anyone who dies after they cast their vote but before the election.  It shouldn't count.  Where's the accountability?"


Anyone would refer to grandma, pap, brother, sis, aunt, uncle, etc. 


Geez, you people make it so easy for me to feel smart. 


Next time, please try to stay on post task.
1st paragraph. I agree. That's why O's and B's supporters are voting for them. Not more government. Better government...smarter government…and one with vision for a different America than what you cons are peddling. You are straying from the subject again. Pay attention. The discussion is about O and JM how JM's plan differs from Bush's plan. On the voting record, last time I checked only O and JM are running for president and those are the voting records we are inspecting now. It is the 90+% of MC'CAIN'S votes in support of Bush's initiatives that we now showcase. Do not complicate the plan comparisons with a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors peripheral unknowns. Candidates. Got it?

Have it your way. Bush adopted O's exit strategy first and JM followed his lead who followed O's lead. He did not start talking exit at all until the Bush flip-flop(s) (i.e., we dont negotiate with terrorists but a US interests section in Iran might work) began getting press during the primary campaigns. I have not had time to examine the context from which you lifted O's surge statement from the other O's Fox interview which you continually and confidently predicted he was too scared to do. Once I do that, I will comment further on the surge statement. Don't know how to tell you this, but the surge was not the greatest national security/foreign policy decision, although it is plain to see that the cons often get military strategies pretty mixed up with foreign policy. Again, ask the Iraqis how successful our missions have been at slaughtering more than 100,000 of their family members. Another bubble to burst here. There are many among us who do not feel that the war has made our nation safer from terrorists. So, in fact, we are not done with this subject, no matter how quickly you would like to dismiss it. Obama was simply trying to avoid MORE quagmire and advance the withdrawal plan that is not only promoted by him, but now suddently promoted by Bush and JM in tow. Some call it vision, others call it judgment.

Did not ask about JMs speeching. Asked about the plan. What is it, if he laid it out so plainly? Must have missed all that between the fear/military references last night. BTW, as I told you in the past post, govt transparency is a democratic initiative that was launched back in the early 90s during the Clinton administration, squashed during the undercover Bush administration and is now clearly articulated in O's technology section under issues.

Cons cannot speak for democrats as to how they can or cannot define pork barrel spending. I know very well what it is. I do find your example of moveon.org rather peculiar in this context. When was the last time they benefited from pork barrel legislation? Please do not reply with a regurgitation of Fox and O'Reilly campaign to demonize the group. You want to talk PACs, fine, but put them in the correct context and tread very lightly for your own sake.

The class warfare is waged by pubs against dem constituents, so yes, I am familiar with that subject and plan to continue to advocate and support measures that will level that playing field. I have a lot of company in that regard. TBone advocates drilling once or twice inside the context of a whole arsenal of other energy initiatives that you discount by omission. He does not, however, try to sell the public on the notion that this will bring prices down anytime in the first of second terms of the upcoming administrations like JM and company would have us believe. On the American imperialist delusions of grandeur, if you have to ask, no soup for you. Would be a waste of time, but this concept is not lost on the better versed in Bush/Cheney NeoCon visions which JM is trying to deny and embrace at the same time. Good luck with that one.

Stay on task, sam. This thread is about refuting
Guess you can't reconcile facts staring you straight in the face with the fiction you couldn't wait to post. Again, if O voted against Katrina funds, there had to have been something REALLY stinky the proposal, and I for one prefer to wait and see exactly what it was before passing judgment.
Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
Counting by hand of 100 million votes would be a task...sm
Not that it is an unworthy one, I just doubt it will be done.

One idea was that the computer gives the voter a reciept of their selection and then the reciept, once verified by the voter, is deposited into the machine.

Brainstorming, I suggest they take it one step further and have a real time tally for each candidate per voting center. That way the voters can verify that their vote was casted, counted, and affected the number. The last voters, along with the volunteers could verify the final numbers for the districts.
Pubs and you especially, Sam, have
Left shoe is on the right foot now. No choice left except to stew in your own juices in this regard.
The Pubs also always say...
Just look at his mother at age 94 (or whatever). She's still kicking at her age. NOT!!! No one ever asks where his father is. Dead perhaps? At what age? Will have to Google that maybe.
The same can be said for the pubs that
nm
Pubs
I'm not a pub as you put it, but a democrat, and I cringe at the thought of Obama in the white house. If it were Biden, I would definitely consider that strongly but when you have nothing but corrupt questionable activities and more than questionable acquaintances, I won't help put that kind of person in office.

I'd rather go down with the sinking ship, as some poor lost soul OP phrased it, rather than be the cause of the sinking ship.


Oh, I know, all pubs are...well,
fine and upstanding citizens and bleeding hearts for the middle class and poor.  I imagine rabid Republicans are about the only ones who still think George W. Bush is a fine, honest, Christian man.  I recall one Rabid around here who carried a huge sign around in the back of his pick-up truck in 2004 that said, "Vote freedom, vote God, vote Bush."  Nearly made me vomit.  Not surprisingly, being a rabid Republican, he is carrying around the same sign but changed Bush to McCain.  But he's also crying that he lost his job, is worried about his mortgage and they can't afford for his wife to retire.  Rabid people can't seem to learn anything from experience.
Here's a new one for you pubs....

Got this email this morning who says from her mouth to my ears that she is a DEMOCRAT, has never voted for a republican but says (from her mouth to my ears) that she will NEVER vote for a black president.  So she sends me this with the warning in the subject line, "be afraid, be very afraid."  If I didn't love her I'd wring her neck off!!


Notice to All Employees

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a “fair shake.”

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are “too busy for overtime” to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as “the government.” We will not participate in this “pooling” experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The “government” will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.”

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's “good to spread the wealth". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic.”

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?) !!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.


Who said anything about pubs? I said O can't get
nm
about 5 pubs
Minority hardly even describes how you think. 
Pubs would love that, but no can do.
Somebody from your cowardly party steps us and acknowledges some responsibility and culpibility in this tragedy.
If she is a sideshow, why are the Pubs

keeping her away from the media?  Why hasn't she answered one question nor had one interview since she was picked as VP nominee?  Seems odd to me, but then, I find JM's choice very odd and not so brilliant.


Like I said, pubs simply do not
nm
Calling all pubs.
xoxoxoxo
Pubs hate sex
Pubs think sex is a sin - click on link
Exactly! I see no comments from the Pubs.
nm
Sure and the pubs had no hand in it at all.
Maybe if the pubs weren't so against regulating it may have been averted too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1222092873-DDzUm2VKJMYWutTohJrNDQ
maybe sam's one of them rich oil pubs
well-being of the rest of us.
If that's your theory, then the pubs
should have been all for it, but they weren't, were they?
Pubs are the ones with blinders on.
nm
Didn't say that. You did. It's the pubs who
JM's economic meltdown plan is exactly what now?
Exactly, pubs had to take on the responsibility
to handle the junk the dems left them with. Glad you understand.
Maybe we could just round up all the pubs
so we can actually get some work done this time around!
I do believe the pubs are grasping at
Time for a change; the same isn't working anymore...
Look, if the pubs are going to get a bad wrap
I may as well ruffle your feathers!!!    (At least I'm trying to be PC by posting a nonpartisan-looking smiling)
I don't think it's fair to just say pubs
GP...I have had many dems be downright hateful to me about the fact that i'm too "close minded" and "ignorant" because I won't vote for Obama.

Quite frankly I don't care, because I consider myself an independent. I just happen to be voting republican this time. I wish like heck an independent had become a viable candidate but i'll be amazed if that EVER happens.
"A Few Years Ago" the pubs had the
-
I am not bashing - but the same can be said of hte pubs -
The bitter, bitter pubs are still bashing Obama instead of waiting and giving him a chance.

He is our next POTUS and he should be given the respect he is due in that position. Everybody should start with a clean slate - at least let him get started before you tear him down...