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

Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...

Posted By: Marmann on 2009-01-05
In Reply to: Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force - sm

... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people. 


Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.

Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough. 




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

Who should be bomb next?

Check thsi out..I hope it works, if not check out Crooks and Liars website and watch it there.  People are asked which country we should bomb next and they actually name other countries!!  And their knowledge of geography is frightening.  If I was asked..what country should be bomb and invade next I would say NONE, LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE!  Amazing.


Who would you bomb next?


CNNN (not US) asks people On the Streets of America who they would bomb next.


                                  Video-Wmp  Bittorrent-WMP 


                                  Video-QT-     Bittorrent-QT



 


Conservative Sites for Non-Bomb-Throwers

I'm posting this again, since it got lost in the shuffle. 


I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less.  I will probably just ignore it.  These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers.  If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me).  The show itself is very funny in my opinion.  Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people.  I've become very good friends with a couple people from there.  I found out one of them lives in the same city as me.  Talk about a small world!  Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:


http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/                 On the right side of this there are a lot of places to go.

 






There are many more.  Here are a few off the top of my head:


townhall.com


heritage.org


pajamastv.com


newsbusters.org


tammybruce.com


nationalreview.com


hotair.com


michellemalkin.com


newt.org

 


Of course, let us not forget:


rushlimbaugh.com


marklevinshow.com


hannity.com


anncoulter.com


lauraingraham.com


 


Another thing many don't know is that The History Channel is owned/run by libs, so watch with caution.  I personally prefer War Stories with Oliver North on FNC.  Tammy Bruce was formerly president (or whatever they call it) of NOW, but not now.  She has a very interesting story to tell about their ways of doing business.  I wonder if any libs will look into this.  And imagine this, a conservative lesbian!


 


So enjoy, you few conservatives!  


Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,



The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple. 


Conservative Sites for Non-Bomb-Throwers

I'm posting this again, since it got lost in the shuffle. 


I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less.  I will probably just ignore it.  These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers.  If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me).  The show itself is very funny in my opinion.  Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people.  I've become very good friends with a couple people from there.  I found out one of them lives in the same city as me.  Talk about a small world!  Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:


http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/                 On the right side of this there are a lot of places to go.

 






There are many more.  Here are a few off the top of my head:


townhall.com


heritage.org


pajamastv.com


newsbusters.org


tammybruce.com


nationalreview.com


hotair.com


michellemalkin.com


newt.org

 


Of course, let us not forget:


rushlimbaugh.com


marklevinshow.com


hannity.com


anncoulter.com


lauraingraham.com


 


Another thing many don't know is that The History Channel is owned/run by libs, so watch with caution.  I personally prefer War Stories with Oliver North on FNC.  Tammy Bruce was formerly president (or whatever they call it) of NOW, but not now.  She has a very interesting story to tell about their ways of doing business.  I wonder if any libs will look into this.  And imagine this, a conservative lesbian!


 


So enjoy, you few conservatives!  


Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,



The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple. 


If Netanyahu continues to bomb Gaza,
then Obama has to do some action, words are not enough anymore regarding this conflict.
Most probably Obama, as he is a wise guy, he will curtail US' financial and weapon support to Israel.

Obama will not start the bombing and he will not torture.


Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case...sm
Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case

April 15, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter/ dnewbart@suntimes.com
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has been hit with a series of bomb threats since leading a charge to get shock jock Don Imus fired.

Jackson said he fielded a call Saturday morning urging him to watch his back and warning him to stay away from Rainbow/PUSH headquarters on the South Side.

Friday, a Jackson staffer took a call from someone who claimed to have planted a bomb at the headquarters at 50th and Drexel. The building was evacuated about 12:30 p.m., and police swept the building with bomb-sniffing dogs. Nothing was found.

Jackson said he has received 10 to 12 threats starting Wednesday or Thursday. The calls have gone to his office, his home and his cell phone. Although he hasn't fielded most of the calls, he said he believes there are different people behind them.

A police spokeswoman said an investigation is ongoing.

In New York, meanwhile, WCBSTV.com reported the Rev. Al Sharpton has also received death threats after criticizing Imus.

Imus was fired from his radio show for calling members of the Rutgers women's basketball team nappy-headed hos.
Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force
into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy.

Thanks to their last fiasco when they tried this in Lebanon, Hezbollah has an 80+% approval rating among Lebanese factions (13 points higher than O) and its support among Lebanese Sunni Sunni, Christians and Druze soared in 2006. Their demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors, especially in the aftermath of Israel's failed massacre, when protests against PM Siniora sent his approval ratings into a deep-6.

Hezbollah was given veto power in the parliment via the Doha Agreement in 2008 and under its newly formed National Unity Government, Hezbollah gained the Labor Minister's appointment and holds 11 out of 30 seats, or slightly over one-third alongside Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Maronites, Armenians, Shia, Sunni and Druz.

So you see, instead of giving Hezbollah the boot, Israel legitimized their standing the Lebanese government.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932008_Lebanese_political_protests
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/UnityGovernmentEN.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)


Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved





By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET



While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.


Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.


Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.


The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.


Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.


They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.


Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.


I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.


Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.


The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.


The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.


The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.


Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.


Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.


Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.


Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.


For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.


A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.

Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.

___

Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.




Please review the Iraq Liberation Act and the speech given by clinton in 1988 explaining why he bomb
Operation Desert Fox. Bush, nor conservatives, were the first to call for regime change in Iraq. Clinton signed in a LAW calling for just that. I posted the act below. Both sides have called for regime change, only one side made it a law...that would be yours. Can we move on to another subject now?
Your first sentence says it
It's a question of who is shouldering the burden. Well apparently you're a billionaire,'cause I know many hardworking, responsible, professional middle-class people (no one looking for a handout)working pretty darn hard just to stay afloat...people with degrees who are delivering pizza. Our local food pantries can't keep up with the demand and this was before Katrina. There are Meals on Wheels volunteers, who pay for their own gas, have had to stop because they simply can't afford it. And the meals that WERE being delivered weren't even hot, because THAT was cut back. Go, good for you on your shiny throne passing judgement on who is or isn't looking for a hand-out, but I can tell you that even with every kind of insurance and adequate income, I pray my husband or I don't get sick or have some unforeseen catastrophy, because in many cases that is all it takes.
You said it all in one sentence...
Hindsight IS 20/20, something Democrats tend to forget.  The pre war intelligence was very ominous, and it was international intelligence, not just ours.  If an attack had come our way which was then traced to Iraq, you would have placed the blame squarely on the back of GWB.  Of course, now that we have hindsight, he's blamed for the war being not worth it, wrong war, ad nauseum.  Apply a little logic and you can see that it's a no-win situation.  I believe the man did what he had to do, AT THE TIME.  You can't play Monday morning quarterback.  The prominent Democrats were all on the same page before the war, just read some of their quotes. 
I think the last sentence says it all..sm
Either way, even if you believe McCain's health plan is a train wreck and that none of his math adds up, he proposes to fix that with Medicare savings, not with $882 billion worth of "cuts."

Tell me what the difference is, one says medicare savings and one says medicare cuts. Both mean less money for medicare, no? Semantics on both sides I think.

We can sum all of the above in one sentence:

 


LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!


me neither......Your sentence that
I quoted in my former post reminded me so much of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, therefore I swerved away from the issue at hand.

Ahmadinejad should step down and give his position to Mousavi. Same with Khatami.
On what are you? In your last sentence
of your post you contradict what you wrote in your subject line!

Hahahaha! LMAO !

You are a joke, 'Backward typist,' are you really .....?

Confused or imbibed?
Your last sentence tells it all
Your last sentence concerning ammo, in my opinion, sums up your beliefs, i.e., republicans, versus democrats.  Everything to you righties is fight time, attack time, war time whereas we lefties post something for people to read or debate, not to fight.  I cant speak for all, but I believe negotiating, talking out problems, trying to understand each other works better than slinging insults, attacks, and using ammo.  A nonpartisian person reading these posts would be able to see, the attacks more often than not are from the right wingers.
I do believe that the last sentence is especially true.
Isn't it amazing.  So many here with ties to Vietnam veterans and so many differing viewpoints.  Nearly every male in my family has served in the Armed Forces and this down to third cousins.  Many of them served in Vietnam.  Every one of them has bad feelings towards the peace movement in the 60s and 70s. 
I will finish your sentence. sm
an impossible thing for YOU.
regarding your list sentence

your body might not be there anymore.


 


is there a subj in that sentence?

just does not make sense.  Please proofread what you post so you don't look illiterate.


 


I just went to the link and the first sentence
states it was from January. I am not even sure he is saying rates will skyrocket, but that will be the argument against his plan to cap greenhouse gases and retrofitting.
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
ADD time. The end of that sentence should be
shares in the responsibility at this point.
Don't need to explain to you, you explained yourself in your last sentence.
t
Thanks for the post. I was especially impressed by the last sentence...
of the article. At least they showed both sides (good for them), albeit three paragraphs on Palin and 1 line on Obama. Big sentence tho.
Can't ge past the ignorance of the first sentence here.
the constitution is not a static document and is, in fact, a living, dynamic, changing, vital document. To wrap you brain around this concept, consider this. The orignal Constitution contained 10 amendments. Amendments 11 through 27 commenced over time as such: 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913x2, 1919, 1920, 1933x2, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.

There. You see? The (progressive) authors of the constitution in their wisdom provided the mechanism of amendement, that would allow for change and growth. That makes it a living, breathing, dynamic document. Got it?

Next time you try to interpret Obama's book, watch your step.
That last sentence just didn't EVEN sound right! sm
And I think the missing sheep brains is the main thing in this picture.
Did you forget to finish our sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Did you forget to finish your sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Interesting sentence construction.
I would have gone with the adjective ''grammatical'' to modify the noun ''mistakes'' rather than using the noun ''grammar'' to modify another noun, or perhaps ''bad mistakes in grammar.''  Then again,  I might have linked ''bad-grammar'' as a compound modifier, but then that's just me (as well most who are truly English literate.)
The last sentence is particularly worrisome for Michigan.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804053.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Senate's Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama's 'Public Option'

By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 19, 2009

A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation's health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking.

The document, distributed among members of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday afternoon, addressed none of the funding questions that have consumed House and Senate negotiators in recent days. But it included an array of coverage provisions that were drastically scaled back from earlier versions, as lawmakers seek to shrink the bill's overall cost. The proposal, for instance, would reduce the pool of middle-class beneficiaries eligible for a new tax credit meant to make insurance more affordable.

The absence of a "public option" marks perhaps the most significant omission. Obama and many Democrats had sought a public option to ensure affordable, universal coverage, but as many as 10 Senate Democrats have protested the idea as unfair to private insurers. In its place, the draft circulated yesterday outlines a co-op approach modeled after rural electricity and telecom providers, subject to government oversight and funded with federal seed money.

Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with four Republicans, including Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking GOP member on the panel, along with two Democratic colleagues in an attempt to find bipartisan consensus. Baucus dubbed the group "the coalition of the willing."

Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats are exploring a range of funding options, including a surtax on the rich and an increase in the payroll tax imposed on all U.S. workers. The list also includes new taxes on sugary drinks and alcohol, along with broader levies, such as a national value-added tax of up to 3 percent.

The Senate's preferred option -- taxing the health benefits that millions of Americans receive through their employers -- is also on the House list. So is Obama's favorite idea: limiting the value of itemized deductions for the nation's wealthiest 3 million taxpayers.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee charged with developing a financing plan, said lawmakers have not "embraced any particular source of revenue." But he confirmed that big, broad-based taxes like the payroll tax and a value-added tax are under discussion, mainly because they have the potential to raise "a lot of money" for an expansion of health coverage expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

The House will not unveil a financing plan until after the July 4 recess, Neal said, though House leaders were expected to release an outline of the rest of their plan today, with a goal of putting a bill to vote later this summer. The Senate is aiming to debate its legislation in July as well, and is seeking a bill that would cost less than $1 trillion.

Maintaining that tight schedule could prove difficult, though, because daunting issues remain in both chambers. One area of contention is the extent to which private employers must subsidize public coverage for their workers if the companies don't offer their own plan or if the premiums are unaffordable. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if lawmakers don't find the right formula, employees may flee their company plans for federal coverage, sending government costs soaring.

The draft in the Senate committee spells out one possible solution: It would require employers to pay 50 percent of Medicaid costs for workers enrolled in the low-income program and 100 percent of the cost of health-insurance tax credits for eligible employees. Workers could forfeit employer coverage only if the cost exceeds 12.5 percent of their income.

The draft, earlier reported on by washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein, spells out four options for requiring employers to provide coverage, with exemptions for firms with up to 200 employees. It would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage, though certain groups, including Native Americans and undocumented workers, would be exempted.

It also would loosen eligibility requirements for Medicaid, a proposal certain to alarm many governors who are grappling with budget crises.





Proves you don't read anything..Says in the 1st sentence he is Gov. Lynch of
x
oops, ignore the last partial sentence....nm

Did you just use the name Rush and the word honesty in the same sentence? (sm)
  • Limbaugh lied about 9-11 Commission report

  • Limbaugh falsely claimed "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks

  • Limbaugh misrepresented Duelfer report on Iraqi WMDs

  • Limbaugh lied about AIDS

  • Limbaugh overstated the minimum wage

  • Limbaugh made false claims about the Democratic National Convention

  • Limbaugh distorted the Kyoto Protocol

  • Limbaugh falsely accused Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)

  • Limbaugh claimed Clintons are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

  • Limbaugh lied to defend Swift Boat Vets

  • Limbaugh misstated Pew report on journalists

  • Limbaugh mischaracterized the federal deficit

  • Limbaugh misstated federal education spending

  • Limbaugh lied about Bush's false uranium claim

  • And that isn't even the tip of the iceburg for him.  And by the way, what's with the *he owns his problems* junk?  Does that mean that since he admits he's a drug addict then he's not a bad drug addict?  Give me a break.


    http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006


    oops...first sentence posted twice by accident.
    :)
    Haha! I so agree, she summed it up in 1 sentence, there is nothing more to say!..nm
    nm
    That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to
    But that's no surprise. There was one sentence in those two paragraphs about how the crats always blame the pubs, but they never take responsibility and blame the people in their own party who are at fault too. So you take one sentence out of the whole two paragraphs and say that's what the whole message was about. Nice try. My message was about this admistration so far being a disaster in less than one month. The only ones who see it okay are the kool-aid drinkers, and that I'm sick of all the people acting as though there was never a United States until Obama came along. Since you evidently did not read my message I'll repeat it now.

    American has been around for over 200 years. We've had some good presidents and we've had some bad presidents, but Obama did not discover a new country here.

    Since McCain was not elected nobody can say whether or not he would have been a better president or not, so time to put that dog to rest.
    In the last sentence of her post she retracts what she said in her subject line, lol!..nm
    nm
    Your first sentence really shows was a mean hate filled shallow person you are.


    Too bad McCain can't form a sentence w/o gagging, slurring, making faces
    That is his problem. Obama is eloquent... oh well
    blah, blah, blah, I read only the 1st sentence and
    here we go again...blah, blah, blah...broken record!

    Whom do you Republicans try to convince?

    Youselves?

    Like McCain and Cheney who
    are hoping and even wishing for further attacks on the American soil, so that they can prove that all the B* they did during these 8 years was justified?

    And to prove that O's strategy is wrong and they were right.

    The 9 years are over!