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

You do if you continue to meet and scheme with

Posted By: them ............ nm on 2008-10-23
In Reply to: Oh, please! - Sally

@


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

Really? In the big scheme of thing, this seems awfully

Seems even GREENSPAN is rethinking your scheme.
markets would regulate themselves." Looks like at least the economics lab will be open for business and cooking up some experiments. Remember voodoo economics when pubs had a finger-pointing field day? Change is the name of the game.
Excuse me, but he did meet with her

I mean, if she's hated him for so long like she now claims then why didn't she tell that to his face the first time.  Oh, the first time she was singing his praises.  That's just blatantly odd.  Most of us never get one appointment with the Pres., but this chick thinks she deserves a second one just because she's changed her wishy-washy mind because her son died in the military service he SIGNED UP FOR!!    As John Stossel says, "give me a break!"


Nice to meet you too! Welcome...nm

pot...meet kettle....

Whether I'm **ready to meet him** is something
and it's none of your business.
Meet the Press at 6 pm EDT. Watch

for the answers to these allegations.


Apples meet oranges. (nm)
xx
Again, apples...meet oranges!
Unlike common garden-variety pedophiles, Priests are in positions of power within the church and take vows of celibacy. I am sure you are aware of the major upheaval in the Catholic Diocese because of the extensive number of cases where priests have sexually molested children. Exorbitant payouts have been made by the Catholic Diocese to the many children who are victims of Priests who are practicing pedophiles.
Apples...meet oranges! (nm)
:p
Logic + Big Bad - Never the twain shall meet.
There you go trying to be all logical and realistic and everything.

Those who are in the 'ignorance is bliss' camp will never believe that radical Islam is anything to worry about. They will continue to blame 9/11 on America. They will continue to blame Bush for everything else. They will continue to praise their annoited one every time he jogs shirtless or plays with a puppy or eats a piece of pie.

They don't want to see his radical agenda, his blatant mistakes, or his real (and really dangerous) lack of leadership skills.

My folks used to raise hunting dogs. Once in awhile, you'd come up with a dog that simply couldn't learn. No matter how much time you put into training and coaching the poor little thing, its head could never seem to get in the game. They were lovable, attractive, but totally useless for the job they were meant to do.

I can't wait until we get another chance to find the pick of the litter, because when it comes to Obama, as my dad might say, "That dog can't hunt."
Glass house...meet stone!
Let's just communicate in cliches from now on!
He also had time to meet with Lady de Rothschild...sm
Oh yes. He urgently had to get to Washington to work on the financial crisis! Riiiiightt! -

>> You remember her, the lady who called blue collar voters "rednecks." McCain thought meeting a beautiful filthy rich member of royalty was more important than focusing on the economy today. Yet he now suddenly wants to cancel everything to focus on the economy. >>
It never stops....meet the moderator for the VP debate...
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/10/01/a_debate_moderator_in_the_tank_for_obama
Valerie Jarrett on Meet the Press-Did you know?

 Born in IRAN. Worked for Richard Daley, was her mentor? She is co-chair of the Obama-Biden transistion team. She hired Michele in 1991.


She will not give any info on whom he may choose for his team.  "Everything is a possibility." She is not ruling out anything. "Obama is selecting the best team for the job."


Rahm Emanual: She knew him for over 15 years. He embraces O's philosophy.


Will she take the Rich Daley model and implement it? Roundabout answer.


What are his flaws? "That's what is nice about being his friend. I can talk about his strengths, not his flaws."


 


Conservatives that I meet are common sense
nm
First, they were invited by O to meet with him "without their lawyers." SM

They never had to approach President Bush because he was tough on terrorists and they knew he would give them the justice those sailors deserved!  The O administration are going to be timid with terrorism and terrorists.  Closing Gitmo is the first step towards completely castrating America in the eyes of the world.  He is weakening this country with every passing day of his administration. 


He wants to make peace with terrorists and it simply will not happen.  IT WILL NOT HAPPEN! 


This is insanity!  I don't understand how we as Americans can completely forget the loss of the lives of fellow citizens on 9/11?  How do we simply disregard the lives those on the USS Cole gave with that terrorist attack?  How can you people devalue these Americans and their families?  What happened to the righteous outrage and the promise of justice for the dead?


All of sudden, O comes along with his pretty speeches and we are supposed hold hands with these people and forgive and forget?!?!?!?!  We're supposed to close Gitmo because we are violating the rights terrorists with our mean interrogation tactics?  What about the rights of the people who died, the families who lost loved ones?  What about their rights? 


If someone killed your child would you stop at nothing to find the truth and stop it from happening to someone else? 


I am disgusted with you O lovers here!  You care so little for the lives of your neighbors.  You care so little for the fate of your Country, for your Constitution.  You deserve what you get.


I love, too, that Joe Biden is going to meet with him next week.
Joe - white person with blue eyes. Can't wait to hear what this guy has to say to Joe!
John Murtha to appear on Meet the Press today!

I set my VCR!


Well I work two jobs to make ends meet
and I will be very happy to get another stimulus check.  I might take part of the check and go to Chili's, so I guess there is such a thing as a "free lunch" occasionally.  So "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" as my grandmother used to say.
Meet The (White) Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon

I was reading on ABC.com and found this article in the comments section. I don't know much about the Huffington Post, so this may be taken with a grain of salt. I thought it was interesting though.


Meet The (White) Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
March 21, 2008


Meet the man who inspired Reverend Jeremiah Wright's now famous tirade about America's foreign policy inciting the terrorist attacks of September 11.


His name is Ambassador Edward Peck. And he is a retired, white, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter -- hardly the black-rage image with which Wright has been stigmatized.


In fact, when Wright took the pulpit to give his post-9/11 address -- which has since become boiled down to a five second sound bite about "America's chickens coming home to roost" -- he prefaced his remarks as a "faith footnote," an indication that he was deviating from his sermon.


"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday," Wright declared. "He was on Fox News. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true: America's chickens are coming home to roost."


Wright then went on to list more than a few U.S. foreign policy endeavors that, by the tone of his voice and manner of his expression, he viewed as more or less deplorable. This included, as has been demonstrated in the endless loop of clips from his sermon, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuking "far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."


"Violence begets violence," Wright said, "hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."


And then he concluded by putting the comments on Peck's shoulders: "A white ambassador said that yall, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open and is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice... the ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them... let me stop my faith footnote right there."


Watch the video (the relevant material starts around the 3:00 mark):


So it seems that while Wright did believe American held some responsibility for 9/11, his views, which have been described as radically outside the political mainstream, were actually influenced by a career foreign policy official.


Who is Peck? The ambassador, who has offered controversial criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank but also warned against the Iraq War, was lecturing on a cruise ship and was unavailable for comment. But officials at Peck's former organization, the Council for the National Interest, a non-profit group that advocates reducing Israel's influence on U.S. Middle East policy, offered descriptions of the man.


"Peck is very outspoken," said Eugene Bird, who now heads CNI. "He is also very good at making phrases that have a resonance with the American people. When he came off of that Fox News, a few days later he said they would never invite me back again."


And what, exactly, did Peck say in that Fox News interview that inspired Wright's words?


Here are some quotes from an appearance the Ambassador made on the network on October 11, 2001, which may or may not have been the segment Wright was referring to. On the show, Peck said he thought it was illogical to tie Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and that while the then-Iraqi leader had "some very sound and logical reasons not to like [the United States]," he and Osama bin Laden had no other ties.


From there, Peck went on to ascribe motives for what prompted the 9/11 attacks. "Stopping the economic embargo and bombings of Iraq," he said, "things to which Osama bin Laden has alluded as the kinds of things he doesn't like. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things that he sees us as having been doing, the same way Saddam Hussein feels. So from that perspective, they have a commonality of interests. But they also have a deeply divergent view of the role of Islam in government, which would be a problem."


Well now when he shows up on Meet The Press like that I'll start to worry!
x
T.Boone PIckens will be on Meet the Press tomorrow morning (nm)
x
Maybe they should use corn cobs for toilet paper to meet your fiscal requirements, eh?
nm
It may continue until........sm
about 3-1/2 years before the end of time.

Your refusal to pull your head out of the sand, in my opinion, regarding what will happen makes any further discussion of this issue futile. Hope the sand protects your little head when all heck breaks loose.
why do we have to continue with what others before
did wrong?

Tit-for-tat and 2 wrongs doesn't make anything right.

Obama is a very promising and respectable 44th President of the United States of America and if you do not see that, I feel very sorry for you.
and yet you continue...
to slander everyone on this board who doesn't agree with you.
Bush won't meet with border officials despite evidence of Middle East infiltration through Mexico


Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM


Bush declines to meet with border officials


Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer


San Bernardino County Sun


President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.


In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.


Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.


The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States.


Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.


The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.


In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.


Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.


The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.


Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.


It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.


The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.


Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.


We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.


Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.


The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.


I will continue to care for the little guy
Well, you go ahead and defend big corporations and the rich..frankly, they could not care about you one bit.  I will continue to care for the middle class, the poor, the disadvantaged.
Why must you continue to post?
Nah, just someone who cannot imagine why a neocon dinosaur who knows she/he is not wanted or needed on the liberal board would continue to post. 
go ahead...continue...
....being rude.

Life's too short to be so full of hate, directed at every member of the opposite viewpoint.

But as you say, the silence is deafening....maybe you need a hearing aid??
Big 3 talks continue....... sm

According to the article linked below and others I have read, the two of the three auto makers who will be receiving these emergency loans will be required to either show a viable plan for their industries by March 31, 2009,  or face repayment of the loans.  While I agree with the premise of this requirement, I have to wonder if, given the amount of time that it took them to get into this situation in the first place, will 3 months, more or less, be enough time for them to find a way to save their dying companies?  Is this bailout/loan just a temporary fix to a more permanent problem?  What happens, if on 03/31/2009, the automakers have spent the money fronted them, are unable to come up with a plan to satisfy the stipulations, and can not repay the loan?  Is it fair for taxpayers to bear the burden of this as well as the other bailouts that have been given and are likely yet to come? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/11auto.html?ref=us


Not what I said. Just wondering why we continue getting
and not a single person can stop and show a bit more humanity....that's all.
And I suppose you would rather we continue...(sm)
to run that torture chamber in Guantanamo.  Yeah, that would be the one where they can hold supposed SUSPECTS for how long without trial?  Maybe you should rent the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side." 
Not that I feel I need to continue.... sm
this seemingly endless and mindless banter, but rather to just satisfy your apparent thirst for blood, I went back and looked to see what I had posted that I felt the need to apologize for.  Here is the post that I made to abc that sent her off into a tizzy about it being her body and her embryo, etc. 

""And I prefer an abortion to giving up my baby for adoption. I would not be able to sleep a single night, having given my baby to strangers."  (Note:  This was a quote from abc that I was addressing.  )

But you could sleep knowing that you took your baby's life? I am not trying to criticize but simply trying to understand this line of reasoning. " (This was my answer to her quote.)

Now..... go cool off! 


Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
Why do you continue to ask "where" when you have
=>
Obama will continue to act like he did regarding
nm
and the personal attacks continue

Go ahead continue to talk about which you know nothing about
Go ahead, then, continue to talk about what you know nothing about other than news reports and slanted history books and we, who truly know a bit more about jewish issues and Israel will sit back and continue to smile and, of course, like I said in my previous post, there are always courses in the local synagogue that you can take.  Join a jewish discussion group either in the net or in your home town, that is if your home town even has a jew in it, and learn the truth.  Not what is being put out there by radical orthodox jews.  Those are the ones that you see fighting in Israel to stay in Gaza.  The radical orthodox jews.  Sharon, as much as I dont like him, is right in what he has decided.  It is unfortunate but it is just and right. 
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.

But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):

Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action

It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.

The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).

It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.

Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.

Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!

The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.

Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.

Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Before you continue with your generalization rampage
William Bennett's remarks are definitely NOT representative of conservative views as a whole. However, you and GT's comments do nothing...absolutely nothing but make the division between political views that much worse. If you and your ideology truly want unity and peace you would do the cause much good by not adding gasoline to an already bad bonfire.

Your comments cause as much harm to race/political relations as what Bennett said himself.
No. You won't leave. You'll continue on.

Not unlike Bush, who wants to have world domination, you want to dominate all boards here. 


Accidents are exused.  There's no reason on earth to excuse you.


I don't think it serves any purpose to continue this. sm
Suffice it to say, I can't imagine how I would feel were I in his shoes.  Israel is facing some pretty terrible prospects in the days ahead.  Anyway, I'd say it's time to let it drop.  It's funny, as I am posting this, I see over to the side on the right under the ads by Google, Christian Jewish tours.  I have always wanted to go.  I have friends who have gone with their churches.  I may never get the chance. 
You continue to prove my point. (nm)
nm
oh yea, continue the horrors for the victim
Yes, make sure the mother has the baby of the person that raped her. Make sure she goes on for nine months every minute of the day remembering the horrible incident. A lot of rape victims want to commit suicide. Luckily most of them are able to get through it with counseling but most of them don't have a belly to show. But hey, let that belly get bigger. Let her feel the child of the person that committed the horendous crime and violated her body. Make sure she remembers that. Geez - why not just frame the rapists photo so she can see his picture every day. Then the cherry on the cake will be the actual birth when she can once again see the rapist once her baby is born.

And then we have the wonderful knowledge that a lot of times these tendencies are hereditary (not always but a lot of times). Would you want to raise a rapists child knowing that when he/she becomes an adult the likelihood of them committing the same crime against someone else is there.

Oh yes that's a nice 20-year sentance for the victim.
Good. Let the games continue. nm
nm
While you continue to preach to the choir
su
you continue to minimize the gravity of this...
situation. This is not your normal "crisis" for the love of Pete. Whatever McCain has done on deregulation, and I already said he had been for it, when push came to shove, when this looming disaster was foreseen, it was HE who foresaw it, and it was Obama, Dodd, and Frank who ignored everyone, and not only that, ENCOURAGED them to continue the way they were going.

THAT is the point, THAT is what you ignore, and because ou are so enamoured of Barack Obama you do not hold his feet to the fire for his part in this, nor the Democratic party for this.

In THIS issue, NO. The Republicans did NOT have a part in it. They all voted, every single ONE Of them, to push that legislation forward. All the Democrats, eVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, voted not to. That includes Obama and Biden.

Why on EARTH would you trust him as President? I just don't get it.
I'd rather leap into the unknown, than continue
Republican government. We all KNOW we'll lose our shirts with them. It'll be 'business as usual' with those old fossils. At least with some new blood in office, some of us (who AREN'T corporate CEO's) will stand half a snowball's chance in H___ of survival in the future.

Unlike past elections, which I voted in on ideals alone, this one is different. Lots of us are voting SURVIVAL.
For those that want to continue to live in the dark
I do not care to do that. As a democrat, I have watched this man whom so many think will be their saving grace. This man was raised Muslim, is Muslim through and through, and only went Christian on us after he came here and started attending Rev Wright's church.

He is very careful about skirting around questions posed to him. He has never been able to prove US citizenship...refuses to put forth a legitimate birth certificate proving it, and is now facing a suit to hopefully force him to prove just that. I am not so easily led as some O lovers.

I have a close friend in Atlanta, GA, who is an aware winning journalist. This is where one of the most recent honor killings took place. As all campaigns are questioned when something important surfaces, they want to know how the candidate feels about certain things. Well, knowing Obama is Muslim by birth and upbringing, this question was posed out of Georgia to his camp, who would not give a straight answer. They refused to let Obama speak to this. They went round and round the question, but wouldn't even come out and say he would condemn such things. Not even a condemnation of these acts.

Just not easily led about this man.