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

as opposed to the vast wasteland of one (Obama) demigod in 2012...

Posted By: get over yourself on 2009-01-07
In Reply to: With the vast wasteland that is the GOP 2012 field of contenders - sm




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

With the vast wasteland that is the GOP 2012 field of contenders
don't expect her to come out from under the microscope anytime soon. Nailin Palin will become a national passtime at least until then. It is helpful to document anything and everything along the way so that patterns of behavior and subsequent analysis can be backed up with concrete data, not smear, innuendo and baseless accusations. Pretty much, that's how elections are won, or lost, depending on where you're coming from.
This whole thread is a vast wasteland of
nm
Republicans favor giving poor families subsidies to afford private schools. Obama opposed.
Yet Obama sends his daughters to a private school, 29,000 for EACH KID. Hypocrisy, here we come. Geesh, not even in office yet.
but I'm sure the vast majority believes
that life begins at conception, however, I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.
oh yes -- the vast media conspiracy

to hide the TRUTH from the American public!!!!! That's rich.  You're mask of sanity is slip-slip-slipping.  PAY NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain - we at Faux are the ONLY media you can trust!  Really. . . we mean it . . . we would never deceive you . . . we have Rove, Morris, Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity . . . a virtual treasure trove of impartial commentators.


 


Isn't that the law he opposed?..sm
as the Jill Stanek thing happened before 2002?
opposed people would be

encouraged and heartened to see that Americans truly have freedom of speech and can freely dissent from their government's positions. They might use that in their videos to encourage democracy.


 


 


As opposed to a living human being
raped, murdered, beaten,and tortured. I'm sorry, I find that much more atrocious.
The vast majority of mass media is liberal based.......
you have to ask yourself WHY does one need to pass a law for diversity in media ownership. ANY American in this country is allowed to own/manage media without bias on race, gender, or anything else. You start opening our American media up to foreign countries (which is what this entire law is about and you have to understand why) and you have started opening a flood gate of foreign interpretation as to what they consider "free" speech. Foreign intervention into our media is a definite no-no. Why do you feel foreigners need to run our media. They are already involved enough but we should never allow our media to run by foreign entitites.....common sense should dictate why.

In case you don't get the picture, you want a communist China company to run your local TV station? What exactly do you think would happen then?

GET A CLUE!!!!
As opposed to being "in a home" like you, sweetie? SM
Do the staff know that you got loose and are playing on the computer?
Roberts opposed legislation for womens rights

Roberts resisted women’s rights


1982-86 memos detail court nominee’s skepticism





var cssList = new Array(); getCSS("3216310")





  








By Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker


The
Updated: 11:48 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2005

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."


In internal memos, Roberts urged President Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women equally to men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."






getCSS("3176006")
Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents, released yesterday, that provide the clearest, most detailed mosaic so far of his political views on dozens of social and legal issues. Senators have said they plan to mine his past views on such topics, which could come before the high court, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day.











Covering a period from 1982 to 1986 -- during his tenure as associate counsel to President Reagan -- the memos, letters and other writings show that Roberts endorsed a speech attacking "four decades of misguided" Supreme Court decisions on the role of religion in public life, urged the president to hold off saying AIDS could not be transmitted through casual contact until more research was done, and argued that promotions and firings in the workplace should be based entirely on merit, not affirmative action programs.


In October 1983, Roberts said that he favored creation of a national identity card to prove American citizenship, even though the White House counsel's office was officially opposed to the idea. He wrote that such measures were needed in response to the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."


He also, the documents illustrate, played a bit role in the Reagan administration's efforts in Nicaragua to funnel assistance to CIA-supported "contras" who were trying overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government.


In one instance, Roberts had a direct disagreement with the senator who now wields great influence over his confirmation prospects, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). In a 1983 memo, Roberts was dismissive of a "white paper" on violent crime that had been drafted by one of Specter's aides. Noting that the paper proposed new expenditures of $8 billion to $10 billion a year, Roberts wrote: "The proposals are the epitome of the 'throw the money at the problem' approach repeatedly rejected by Administration spokesmen."


President Bush nominated Roberts, now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, four weeks ago.


Yesterday's deluge of more than 38,000 pages of documents has particular political significance -- because of their content and their timing. The papers, held in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, are likely to be the last major set of written material from Roberts's past to become public before his confirmation hearings.


Extensive insight
Senate Democrats have been pressing the Bush administration to release Roberts's files from the highest-ranking position he has held in the executive branch, as the Justice Department's deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. But administration officials have asserted that those records should remain private on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.


Previously released documents, from slightly earlier in the Reagan era, when Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, have established that the young attorney was immersed in civil rights issues of the time, including school desegregation, voting rights and bias in hiring and housing. The new batch provides the most extensive insight into Roberts's views of efforts to expand opportunity for women in the workplace and higher education.


Oh, you mean as opposed to bigger tax cuts for the upper 1/3 of the nation? Really, still waiting f
nm
Here's what I would like to see by 2012

1.  Get rid of the electoral college.  It's obsolete and completely out of touch with its constituents now.  It was necessary when it was instituted - the country was young with a large portion of its population being illiterate, without the technology for communication we have today, etc. 


2.  No more presidential candidates/elections.   Let's put all the issues on a nation-wide ballot and vote. Decide what we, as a nation, want to do about all of the national issues.


3.  Once we have our voted decisions on the national issues, hire a President to carry out what the nation has decided to do.  Provide the criteria to be realized for a successful employment scenario and what would constitute failure in the role.  Maintain the right to terminate for failure.  Bonus for success.  No bonus, no severance pay for failure.  Charges for corruption.


I'm done. 


 


Not really shocking....she wants to run again in 2012.
No one knows how they are going to vote. No one knows what they are saying behind closed doors, although they give Obama lukewarm support to the public. I would not be surprised if they vote for McCain. Would not surprise me at all. Would not surprise me if they are, in unseen ways, subverting Obama's cammpaign.

And then again, maybe Bill is being honest and really feels that way. It is true, McCain has always acknowledged global warming and climate change, much to the dismay of many of his colleagues, and he does have a better record on it than Obama does. McCain has never toed the party line, and that is one of the things I like most about him.
I'm with you! Arnold 2012!!! (nm)
*
Schwarzenegger 2012!!!
LOL!!!
We WILL have an election in 2012 - that is what most go by
The audacity to automatically assume Obama will serve until 2017 is what is going to get you in trouble.

Since you don't understand the simple concept let me explain it for you. Please read slowly so you can grasp reality.

Since America has had it's first president we have had elections every four years. Therefore, seeing as we have just had an election in 2008 and Obama takes office in 2009, our next election will be in 2012.

Your antics and rhetoric of just assuming that Obama will be in there for a second term I would say is a bit premature. Let's let him at least get sworn in and see what kind of a job he does as president. A lot can happen in four years. If he survives then in four years he can think of running again. If Bill Clinton had done half the stuff he did in his second term when he was in his first term he might have not had a second term. We don't know yet if Obama will be keeping his campaign promises or what kind of President he will be.

Here's some reality for you. Obama may turn out to be an absolutely fantastic president. We can all hope for that. So...he could turn out to be a good president and then again he may not be a good president. We won't know until after he has served in the role. Also, you are assuming that because GW was not a good president that every single other living republican would not be a good president and that is just not true. If you believe that then you have a very distorted viewpoint of politics. There are some very good republicans and there are some very good democrats. Just like there are some very bad republicans and there are some very bad democrats. Obama is too new and we don't know what category he falls into yet.

The truth of the matter is that we WILL have another election in four years. Which means the republican party has got four years to really get it together and pick someone that is decent to run against whoever the next democratic nominee will be, whether it is Obama or if he doesn't last whoever else they are going to put in there.

Also we have the congress/senate/house to think of - you know all those people who vote on issues and who have gotten our country in the trouble it is in now (I'm not blaming either side alone - there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides). No, sorry to burst your bubble but GW didn't crap on this country all by his little ol self. The people in the senate who vote on issues did that. So...if for the next four years we see a continuation of the decline of our country, America will probably say, enough with the democrats, we need to bring back a republican president. Not very many people are keen on the idea that every single thing is now being run by one political side. We do need a balance to our government.

One other factor to think about is all the people that Obama is appointing to his cabinet. I'm seeing on this board by a lot of posts that there are a lot of people who, while they are enthusiastic and excited that Obama was elected, they are way not excited that he keeps bringing the old Clinton people back and people who have no experience. Those were the same people who made a mess of things back then and now he's bringing them back in. What he owes them I have no idea but for him to campaign that he is the ONLY candidate who can unite the two parties and he will hire both sides to evenly balance things, that is the first campaign promise he has broken.

Lastly, without any doubt there are some scandals looming about. These are not fabrications. It's just the truth. People he was involved with and are still involved with. Who he owes favors to, the BC thing (whether or not it will get resolved is another story). There is just too much to be ignored. I do understand the loathing that people have for Bush and they would have rather elected a dog rather than another republican, therefore most were saying, so what and tried to bebunk a lot of the issues, however, the issues are real and will not be going away. Not saying that GW doesn't have his share of issues, but I'm not writing a post about GW. Anyway...with the issues that Obama has, one just doesn't know what the next four years will bring for us.

So, taking all that in account, a better approach would be to just say you hope Obama is a good president (as we all do because we want to see our country succeed) and in four years if he turns out to be good then he will be up for re-election. However to just say that its a fact that he will be in for 8 years is a bit arrogant (and nauseating).
Of course there will be an election in 2012
and with the GOP ensconced in this kind of denial and its party still in shambles, the results are a foregone conclusion. Thus, the 2929 count continues. The OP is the only prescription the GOP has to even hope to have a noticeable presence in 2012.
2012 candidate
A possible candidate. I hope so.

http://draftsanford2012.com/



None of this will matter after December 2012 anyway.

and the bickering goes on and on and on, until when? Till 2012?
Good night !
I seriously hope she's not campaigning for 2012.
I think that would be a huge mistake on her part. I think she over-estimates her popularity.


Sorry - "...will be running for office in 2012". SM
We must throw the current residents of Washington out of office, including this loony-left total disaster of a President, his cronies, and also the folks on the other side of the aisle who have become entrenched in power and have been no better in representing the middle-of-the-road Americans who by far constitute the majority in this country.

Let's CLEAN HOUSE!
In 2012 none of our votes will matter, if anyone
The signs will be obvious and the end will be eminent. You should worry less about politics and more about your soul, as should we all.
I'm becoming more hopeful by the day. By 2012, the chickens
...a lot of voters will have lost their enchantment with the "idea" of voting for a President on the basis of his race or his superficial, glib mannerisms. In fact, if the Democrats themselves continue on the path they're starting to follow, I'm not entirely sure he'll be renominated!

The press can't change any of this, either. About 80% of the American population doesn't even watch the evening news on any of the so-called "main" networks.
American undeveloped nation by 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqW1-aA5aMg
Did he decide to cancel the 2012 election? (nm)
*
If Palin pursues prez bid in 2012, lies matter.
All of them. Vigilent watch on Obama is the order of the day and pervades dialog on this forum. Doesn't hurt to start the SP watch now, document it well and be prepared.
and I read that McCain failed to endorse her for 2012 in an interview - nm
x
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.
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy.  The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today.  HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!

Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him.  He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.   


Obama

I believe Obama has an awesome political future.  He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.


Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee.  Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.


I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful.  The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.


Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.

obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm

Obama et. al.

If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.


 


Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.

I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.

People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!

Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.

I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.

If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.

As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.

An article I just read said it better than I can….

“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.

If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story



Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years.  No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
Obama
If she keeps lying from today until November she might actually catch up with Obama!
Go Obama

Haven't seen any posts here for awhile.  Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election.  I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed.  Gas tax holiday?...give me a break!  Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price! 


The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office.  It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history.  It was raised by 4.3 cents.  Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.


So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.


Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.


Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased.  And Indiana too.  It was a close race thank goodness.


Now she needs to step down.  Why?  Because its the right thing to do.  Do the numbers.  There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up.  What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president).  Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind.  Her goal is to serve herself.  She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.


P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads".  Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads".  Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly.  In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama.  Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win.  So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.


Obama
Is Barack Hussein Obama the Antichrist?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94d_1202965504
I am for Obama because...
My point in fact is agreeing with the republicans in that Obama does not have a lot of experience - I think not having a lot of experience is a good thing because it means he is not "hand-in-hand" with all the people that have been in charge for so long - he can form his own opinions, make his own decisions, and not go with somebody just because they did this or that for somebody or they contributed this or that to somebody...
No, Obama gets it better than many do
Check out this award-winning article written by Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy expert, right after 9/11 called "Why They Hate Us" - http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html

Most people at that time (myself included) said that question was irrelavant, but understanding why they some have those attitudes helps us understand better what the U.S. can do to help change it. The fringe extremists will never go away, but their support by the general Muslim community as a whole will diminish (and already is). Free markets and capitalism would go a long way toward this goal and I think Obama gets that.
obama wants to be GOD
He wants to change the structure of the U.S. and he wants to bargain with and change the structure of Europe..  He is a destroyer.
obama
Muslims are dedicated to destroying the US from within. Obama is Muslim.