Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

why do you assume they didn't

Posted By: ... on 2008-11-03
In Reply to: At least YOU could stop for a while and say a prayer! - change

u know what they say about assuming


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

I did not assume you didn't, I was just asking if you did...
which is a valid question.

As to politico itself, sorry if I misunderstood. From your post I did not discern that you meant to that site only. I apologize. Thanks for the clarification.
Assume all you wish. TI
I have no idea.  The fact is, it was linked and your words discussed.  A good laugh was had by all once we realized you really have no idea what you speak about.  What you say here speaks for itself. Isreal is an evil aggressor, no Israelis, women or children, have ever died at the hands of our enemies, we deserve what we get, and we are a plague upon the face of the earth.  That's what you have said, not in those words but in those thoughts.  At least stand behind your words, as foul as they may be to some of us.  We have met your kind all over the world.  There are more and more of them all the time. 
Then I must assume you are against

all of the killing and anhilation of life in Iraq too. But of course, this is just assumption on my part, I could be wrong.  By the way, those embryos are going to be destroyed, as in thrown out.  Does this constitute killing of embryos?  Amazing how some people cannot see things in an encompassing manner.


You assume too much
You assume that everyone who protests never says thank you and does not appreciate the military and that is wrong. As I said before, I was a government employee in a military installation for many years. I do appreciate what these men and women do every day. My father and father-in-law both served in Vietnam. They are both huge war protestors and I am proud to march along side them.

That doesn't mean I have to keep quiet when I don't agree with a military action. Protesting war does not necessarily equal protesting the military. I do agree many are disrespectful, many of us are not and will continue to exercise our rights as long as we have something to say.
Why do you assume that... sm
Planned Parenthood doesn't spend as much time and money offering contraception as they do abortion? *Of course* they do.

But I'm not surprised you aren't familiar with all their services, as you seem unable to see anything other than ABORTION-ABORTION-ABORTION!!! (Which, in looking at the volume of posts you've written on it seems like a rather unhealthy obsession, IMHO.)

My gosh. How sad that that's what you got out of that story. The story was about premature babies dying, not abortion, and yet you somehow turn it into an attack on Planned Parenthood and abortion? What the heck???


And before you assume, no, I am not
xx
Why do you assume...
That the only reason people have against voting for Obama is 'fear?' You must think we're all a pretty uneducated bunch, huh? Right back at ya.

And you need more information on ACORN. Or you're in complete denial. I don't know which one.
Don't assume
First, it is rude & completely illogical for you to equate "breast enhancement" with atheism. You're making leaps from "breast enhancement" to "what a Christian would never do" (& that in itself I find suspect) to "what a non-Christian always does." & you even go one step further, you think you can actually substitute some product (which you've already mistakenly associated with a certain group) *for* that group. It's ridiculous, flimsy, shrill.

A product is not a belief system, but I find it typical of the "black & white," simplistic, narrow form of christianity I unfortunately encounter from time to time that you think the world is divided into "me/not me" and everything outside that tiny circle is somehow all part of the same large conspiracy to deprive you of something.

Second, I would find it completely out of place to screen a pro-choice message at the Superbowl. Why? Because it is a belief system & has no place there. Condoms? As has been posted elsewhere in this thread, plenty of christians use them, & for reasons other than a promiscuous lifestyle. It's a product, used by lots of people for lots of different reasons. For that matter, I would imagine there are women who've had their breasts enlarged for reasons of self-esteem who would be offended by the idea that they did it in order to facilitate promiscuity. In a perfect world, I suppose things like this wouldn't matter & we would all have self-esteem no matter what our shape. The world isn't perfect -- but it is what the godhead made.
Why would you assume..(sm)
that we pay for everything they do?  They actually do have money of their own.  We aren't talking about Palin here.  LOL.
No, I am outraged that you assume so very much.
/
I assume you are speaking of me.
First of all, for your information since you obviously cannot or will not read, I despise Bush.  Your intolerance tells the world (these boards are read by the world, after all) that the liberal left in the United States has become the party of intolerance, anti-Israel, anti-American.  You don't appreciate the freedoms you have and you live a world coloured by hopelessness and despair.  I really pity you.  Since I don't vote in the United States, I am neither left nor right.  But of course, it's easier to label and name call, as you seem so very good at.  The realisation may hit one day that you have a very narrow view of the world out there.
You just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a ....
*gasp* Republican. I'm not. I am not adverse to intellect. I just don't happen to think that attacking an innocent 16-year-old girl because her mother is in a different political party is particularly intellectual, nor do I think it defines those who engage in as particularly intellectual. But that is just me.

I would hope that Obama would be equally as incensed if someone attacked one of HIS children. I know I WOULD BE.
Am I to assume then you are all on board for...
America becoming a socialized nation and earmarking a certain percentage of our tax dollars to go to fight "global poverty" in addition to the billions we already send overseas....you are a citizen of the world before you are a citizen of the United States? Or you just ignore those parts of an Obama presidency?
You automatically assume
You assume if there is something negative said here about Obama, then that poster MUST be for McCain. Well, that is not the case. BTW, Palin doesn't have to look far to cast aspersions on Obama. He's done that to himself.
I assume you speak for yourself

I assume you mean the sad part
is all of our brothers and sisters who refuse believe because they can't "prove" God's existence.  I don't feel sad that the end times are near (I believe) for myself but I do believe the Bible tells us that in the end EVERY knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  It also tells us not to be afraid, something I struggle with, yet I know that in my rather looooong life, He has provided that which I needed, sometimes things I didn't even know I needed.  He has also allowed me to suffer the consequences when I went against His will.  Whatever part of the tribulation we have to endure, I am sure He will make a way for us.  And I do believe we are entering into the tribulation.
I assume you were there at his birth?
x
Just assume and judge all you want. I AM
nm
You don't know me or my faith - so don't assume
And looks like the saying is true about people who assume things.
I assume you are writing all this from Iraq?

Otherwise don't call anyone a coward but yourself.  If you support this war, get off your flabby butt and get over there.


When Hitler sent the German army into an unpopular war, were the Germans who wanted the war stopped and the troops brought home cowards?  Did they not show support for the troops by questioning Hitler's war?  They were admirable and good people to stand up in the face of the German political administrations' choices!.  They LOVED their troops but did not LOVE Hitler.  Some of the German troops who died in Hitler's misguided war were my husband's relatives.  And no, Bush is not Hitler so don't try misquoting me on that.  The point is, not all wars are noble and good, despite what your proteswarrior group might say.  And just because a PERSON or administration got us into a deadly MESS doesn't mean we should remain in that quagmire and continue letting our troops be killed, whether it is the Civil War, Vietnam or Iraq.  Gee, at one time even the Civil War seemed like a good idea.  650,000 lost?  Was it worth it?  Maybe other alternatives could have been explored? 


You hawks are not going to get it.  Us libs can love our troops and support them but we cannot love and support this war.  We can't pretend this is a good and noble cause. 


I am not willing to assume that 1.2 million babies...
would have horrible lives. I can't see killing them all just in case some might suffer. But how is our choice to decide whether or not someone lives based on what kind of life they might have? I think it should be the choice of the creator, myself. I am curious as to what you think your creator thinks about choosing to kill an unborn child? I think mine's heart breaks every time one happens...over 2000 times a day. Yes, that's what I think.

It's quick? It's horrible but its quick? Good grief!!

You keep discounting the right of the child to live. Who are you, the mother, or anyone else, to say that child has no right to live? Do you think your creator endowed you with that right? Just curious.
I did read the whole thing, why do you assume that I
didn't? Just because I didn't feel that it was racist, doesn't mean I didn't. We obviously have different takes on it.

The release of it I was referring to was to the politico.com web site, which Obama did relase it to, not the thesis as a whole.
I assume you mean Rev. Otis Moss?

If so, I have read his bio and I see that he is a protoge (sp) of Dr. Martin Luther King for whom I had great respect.   I expect the blogs and other anti-Obama sources would rip him to shreds though.  Guess I can expect to see posts about him here tomorrow.


Going to bed now.


You assume a lack of compassion....
but your snotty self-righteous attitude speaks for itself. Get over it.
imposing to assume that I am not informed
because I disagree with you?
How do you assume that my world is small?
How can I believe the rest of your comment and your whole state of mind when you state such nonsense?

What is this supposed to mean, I quote, '....so find a different name to call me?'

I cannot recall having ever met you on this board, Victoria, or whatever your user name is?


Is tht so? So I assume that you are a flip-flop,
WHAT exactly made you change your mind?
I assume Goggle works as well for the left as for the right but here are a few

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page


There are 49,100 other entries.  And most of them are not right-wing.


Linked to a Jewish blog? I assume someone from sm
the conservative board did that. I am opposed to war and weep for all victims of war. My criticism is aimed at the state-nations responsible for them, including my own.
You just told another poster not to assume things about you. sm
And then you turned around and did it to me!  Boy howdy, I bet the 60s were a blur to you!  Ah, well, just wee weeing in the wind here.  Nothing of substance.  Move along crowd, nothing to see. 
I assume you are referring to a single photo of him...
and I assume you don't know the exact moment that picture was taken - maybe before or after the actual pledge was recited?  Regardless, I support Obama 100%, and as I have said many times: No candidate is perfect, but he is an exceptional human being and can literally help "save" this country, and Lord knows we need some savin up in here!  I am very optimistic about the outcome in Iowa.
You assume its "abuse of power",or you hope.
nm
Racism on this board? Not fair to assume that.
nm
Because I read and research! Dont assume you
nm
Why assume that flag-flying was this individual's
There's nothing in the story to support your assumption that flying the flag represents this individual's complete understanding of the notion of patriotism.

On the other hand, flying the flag IS certainly ONE expression of patriotism - a form of protected speech, in fact - and the ONLY question here is not whether this individual has a simplistic view of patriotism, but whether displaying the flag should have been prohibited.

We'll just call this your quota of "straw man" logical fallacies for the week, shall we? You may not post another one until next week.
So by posting this, you assume that all liberals feel this way about Christianity?
I certainly know that is not true.  No one has a right to judge any human being's Christianity but God.  Yes, I know your headline said *liberals only* but, of course, that is an invitation to look, isn't it?  I doubt seriously that this writer knows how *the majority* of Christians feel on anything, including the death penalty.  He also shows a very marked lack of understanding and knowledge of what is in the Bible.  Though I am not an Ann Coulter fan, I have never known her to lean heavily on her Christianity when speaking. The last time I looked, there is no picture next to Christianity in the encyclopedia.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't

his own personal reasons.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php


The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.


Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."


Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.


In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.


"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"


Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.


Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.


Conversations With Bush The Candidate


Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.


The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.


I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."


Debating The Timeline For War


But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.


The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.



On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"


I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."


"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …


"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.


Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.



Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"


Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.


Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."


Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.


Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.



 


I didn't know that.
Thanks, Democrat.  I wasn't aware of that point at all, and to me, that makes a huge difference.  I will visit the site and check it out.  Thanks again.
I though you said you didn't

Sorry, but I didn't see anywhere

in AR's post that she was against it.  Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.


The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth.  Don't believe me?  Ask Valerie Plame.


I didn't say that.nm

It is me, but I didn't get it...sm
I think there is a problem wiht the email on forumatrix because I tried to send an email to the poster ????? who posted on the conservative board today and got an error message as well.

Nevermind it though. Have a good day! I have to get ready for my mini vacation later this week, so I will be working mucho hours til Wednesday.
I didn't know it was q/yours/q.
I just made a fast post.  I don't know what the rest of the stuff is you are talking about.  ForuMatrix is a worldwide board.  Some of us don't even live in the United States.  People here might want to realise that when making responses.  It is of no consequence to me one way or the other.  Just asking a question. 
I didn't think so.

Same old.  Same old. 


No way. He didn't say that, did he??? nm
.
I didn't think of it this way.
I really didn't think of that, but you are right. My brother-in-law made over $20K in a few months. My sister has paid off just about everything, including the mortgage.

But, that is a heck of a risk to take for a little cash.
Didn't know about that one.
nm
You'd be #$%*@ing if they didn't do anything -

But, it IS the RNC, so they are damned either way with socialists oops I mean democRATS like yourself. 


Please tell me he didn't say that

I received a call from an friend who was so upset and said Obama called Palin a pig in lipstick.  I responded, surely no, you must be mistaken.  Obama is running for office of the President of the United States.  Why would he ruin his chances of winning by calling this lady a pig.  That doesn't sound like rational behavior for a presidential candidate.  However, to my surprise I opened several different news sources (both liberal and conservative) and sure enough he did.  I'm thinking why, why in the world would you fall down that path of being so low that you would call Palin a pig saying "you can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig".  If he was trying to make a joke in reference to her joke about the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull is lipstick, this joke could not have come at a worse time for him.  How in the world is he going to explain that one.


Shame shame Barack Obama.  This has to be one of the lowest comments anyone can make about another candidate. - Not funny!  Why would you go and ruin any chance you had that people may have thought you had a little bit of "class" to you.


I haven't watched MSNBC but am curious as to how they are going to respond.  How can they support someone when this is his opinion of other people.


Talk about low class.  One more reason I will not be voting democrat this election. 


I didn't know this either, but....sm
I was a little disappointed in McCain yesterday, blaming Bush for the current crisis, just like Obama.

What he needs to do, is link Obama and Biden to this, as they both took bribes from the lobbyists, from these corporations, that went under.

Where's the outrage against the dems and the democratic congress, that knew these things were going on, and refused to step in and stop these from happening?

Once again, it's blame George Bush, and McCain has to remember he's running against Obama, not George Bush.