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

Yes, I have seen in the past few days the kind of party dems like to throw...

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: Afer 8 years of W, nation deserves good chuckle. - Good times, too. As we saw at DNC...sm

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...


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

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.
There has been a big swing in past few days of
nm
Dems throw flags in garbage
Click the link below.  Tsk, tsk, tsk.  How unpatriotic.
I appreciate the deletion from this board in the past few days...sm
Especially when they come here just to bash.


Been covered today already, and over past few days..

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.


interesting article, have read many similar these past few days...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1231-23.htm
Those kind of folks can't see past their nose....
00
sam's right on this one. Mainly the dems in power through the past several...sm
years have abused their power and positions, and taken advantage of the situation.

While I believe a few of the republicans stood by and let it happen, they are not the majority in this.

Rich liberal democrats on Wall street and in Congress/Senate, not to mention Bill Clinton and his cronies, are the ones that bear the most blame.


And some of them are crying the loudest blaming George Bush, when it's their own fault.




Sam has posted the names and dates and all. It is the truth. Research it yourselves. Just because you don't like what she has to say, means that it's wrong.







Dems have already felt that way for the past 8 years...
Get over youselves. It's not fatal.
You mean the ones the dems have had control over the past 2 years
.
The DEMS ruined our economy for the past 2 years.
nm
Most dems hang around 1-2 days, then move on
nm
Guess you fooled us. All dems sound alike these days on this board.
.
Nope, 4 years 11 days (1471 days or 1383 til 11/4/2012)
You do really need to learn how to count until 11/4/2012 or 1/20/2013.

Also, sorry to hear in four years you won't care anymore.
What part of 60-plus days of his first 100 days...sm
don't you understand. I think it's obvious to anyone actually researching his movements what his main goals are - and I don't in my wildest dreams see how in the world he can keep spending as he has been and wants to continue doing and cut the deficit in half by end of his term. IMO his chances are running out quickly. God help us all!
I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
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.


Well by all means...throw the whole country...
to the dogs because he has a dynamic mentality. By ALL means. lolol.
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.
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? 


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.
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.


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
.
They certainly have in the past. sm
but their headline didn't intentionally mislead like the one posted above. Oh, let's face it, the media is just not what it used to be.  I don't trust them at all.
from the past
I am so-o-o sick of the party bickering, finger pointing and verbal barbs blaming the other guy, I am remembering a line from my past "Alfred E. Newman for president." Back then it was a joke but it is starting to sound good again!
That's because most do not look at his past tax
//
You mean once we look past the
seas of humanity jumping for joy on November 4th, the rafters-busting crowds that are descending on DC for the inauguration and the hordes in the global bleachers cheering him on? Four years is sufficient time to build a slam dunk of a track record but in the absence of worthy GOP opponents, all he has to do is stay alive between now and then to get re-elected. Personally, I hope that they put SP, Hasselbach and/or Coulter up there, the dream team of certain defeat. Sure doesn't look like they have much more than that to offer at the moment.
Yes, definitely ignore the past if it does not...
fit your agenda. It clouds nothing. Somehow I cannot see you blasting JFK for Viet Nam. Just cannot see that happening...though you swear you would. You just can't bring yourself to be disguated about something that is not happening NOW? Wanna talk about Carter and Iran? Oh no, we can't do that, that was in the PAST.

Well hang in there piglet...as soon as Congress pulls funding, the troops are brought home because of it, Viet Nam revisited, the horror that will become Iraq when that happens making NOW look like a walk in the park...you will be able to ignore THAT as the past also.

Must be nice.
There is nothing in McCain's past...
of radical leftwing socialist politics. Nor does he think there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion, up to and including allowing babies who survive abortion to be left to die. Tell me...how do you reconcile your Christian principles with that? Do you think the Jesus you know would condone that? For ANY reason?
we have now gone way past rude..
to downright disgusting. It probably also take a MENSA brain to call someone else pathetic, little, loser because they don't think the same as you. Give it a rest already people.
No, I was responding to the past above yours, sorry,
did I get it wrong? yikes - I meant that for the 'first of all' post...