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

Don't need to explain to you, you explained yourself in your last sentence.

Posted By: Have a nice day on 2005-09-23
In Reply to: No, I'm a fool to keep - trying to help you see ..sm

t


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

he explained his

position when asked -- oh horrors!!!


 


 


you explained quicker than i did :)
I was about to but you beat me! lol
Earmarks explained. sm
The ones who vote for the spending bills are the bad guys. Ron Paul votes against all huge spending bills. The bill passes anyway and since it passes, he makes sure all his constituents requests are in there and by earmarking he is tagging the money and keeping track of where it goes. If it is not earmarked, it goes back to the executive like a blank check. By earmarking, he is maintaining a certain degree of transparency and accountability plus giving money the government looted from his constituents back to them.
It has been explained fully many times
in this post and you are obviously unwilling to accept anything we say. 
Then explain his church and minister. Explain that to me. nm
x
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.
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.
Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...

... 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. 


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
    Please explain to me what we are not
    doing to protect ourselves here?  You just assume there's nothing in place here to protect us because you believe all the unsubstantiated liberal talking points that come out ever day.   Believe it or not part of protecting us here at home is making the world a more stable place.  We can't just hope they won't make the long journey over here like they did in the 1700 and 1800s.  Today, in just a few short hours they can walk off of any commercial airline or private plane.  We are in Iraq for a myriad of reasons including protecting our own boarders.  Why does this have to be explained over and over again to you?  A lot of liberals call conservatives narrow minded, but many of you have tunnel vision to a degree I've never seen before.
    Let me explain how I can say that.

    I agree with you that there were inciting posts from both political viewpoints on the conservative board, myself included.  However, I think what is being pointed out was a general trend of "anything goes" for the conservative posters and high deletion/banning rates for the liberals.  This has been apparent for a long time and complained about many, many times (usually complaints are deleted so they are virtually impossible to document at this point).  I personally was warned once for "picking on" Nan, when objectively, it really was more the other way around.  There is a sickness of spirit on the conservative board at times.  I was drawn into this and became "ill" also at times.  I am not proud of this.


    As far as the moderator or administrator, she did post in the Christian board some time ago regarding her beliefs.  They were evangelical Christian, kind of extreme.  That, coupled with occasional comments on the political board in addition to deleting LOTS of liberal posts and actively supporting and not reigning in the Conservatives is, well, just common sense as to her political leanings. 


    Explain please
    I don't have ESP...
    So please explain this:
    If marriage is for procreation, and Mary and Joseph were married, why and how was Mary still supposedly a VIRGIN when Jesus was born?
    Well, then perhaps you could explain to me
    why Saddam's atrocities didn't seem to bother us in the 80s when we wanted his help against Iran?
    This might help explain why.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


    7, 2006



    Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts




    A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.


    The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.


    We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad, the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. That's a problem.


    A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.


    The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.


    The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote The Turner Diaries, the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.


    The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.


    The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members.


    Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military, he said, because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists.


    The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.


    The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.


    They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military, he said. Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq.


    The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. There are others among you in the forces, one participant wrote. You are never alone.


    An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.


    The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's military unit coordinator.


    Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war, he wrote. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.'


    He concluded: As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.


    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company


    Like I said....we all only have to explain our
    own decisions to God. Remember your argument here to me. It may come in handy.

    God bless.
    Someone explain this to me...

    If you are a suspected terrorist or suspected terrorist sympathizer you can go to Gitmo or sent out of the country to a place where torture is A-OK for the rest of your life w/o being given a reason for the incarceration or access to our legal system, even if you are an American citizen but....if you are on a list of terror suspects, you can buy a gun just like everyone else.

    Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by Associated Press
    NRA: Don’t Ban Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
    by Sam Hananel

    WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

    In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ’suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.” 0506 07

    “As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ’suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,” Cox wrote.

    In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

    Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

    Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

    “When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg’s bill.

    In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.

    “Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it.”

    A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

    © 2007 The Associated Press.


    Will someone please explain to me -
    Why do you keep saying our vote does not count and that the next President has already been chosen? 
    I for one, have too much to do, to try to explain it....sm
    to you, because frankly, I'm getting so I don't care.

    There's nothing to find out, and they're making stuff up, so until you have something substantial, I have work to do.


    However, if you would have posted about the screaming witch woman from up north and her rag on her, I would have really busted a gut being upset.

    As it is, I'm just letting it all go, because Gov. Palin is better than you, better than me, and better than the media.

    She will rise above it all, and come out on top. Of this, I have no doubts whatsoever.


    That's all I have to say on the matter, cuz I have too much to type for more here....


    Look at who you are trying to explain this to
    xx
    Please explain...
    Please explain exactly how Democratic voters are misled.  How are they being misled???  What, can they not read the English on the voter card?  All I know is Ohio had 200,000 dead and nonexistant voters voting for Obama.  I don't think it's the Democratic voters who are being misled, I think it's the American people, who don't realize what a complete scam is going on with this ACORN group. 
    Would someone please explain
    How McCain  can "guarantee" he's going to win as he said on Meet The Press yesterday?
    Perhaps this will help explain....
    Remember him talking about the tax "credits?" That is his way of floating giving tax rebates to people who pay no taxes. This is the opinion from someone on the other side of the pond...and explains it pretty well.

    OBAMA TAX PLAN – 95% BULL?

    Obama’s tax plan is receiving much praise from some elements of the Tory blogosphere. Promising tax cuts for everything and everyone is certainly a very attractive position, and I can see why so many ObamaCons are attracted to it; but does the claim really stand up to scrutiny?

    Firstly, if you look at Obama’s promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans and then look at the billions of dollars needed for the government programs that he has pledged to implement or expand, and common sense should tell you that thing simply do not add up.

    Secondly, the 95% of all Americans figure is suspect. Since more than 30% of working Americans don't pay any income taxes now - many in fact get a welfare check - how can they get a "tax cut?" So how does Obama back up this 95% claim? Well those of you with long memories may remember Bill Clinton’s battle to change the definition of what “is” is? What we are witnessing here is an attempt to change the definition of tax cut. To me, and I am guessing to most people, a tax cut means you get to keep more of what you earn. But for the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts disguised by the infamous "tax credit." All but one of these tax credits would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for an income transfer -- a government check -- from taxpayers to non taxpayers. In other words, increased welfare, a Demogrant if you will. Obama's marketing genius is to call this increase in welfare a tax cut; and given how UK conservatives have watched the collapse into failure of Gordon Browns tax credit system, I am mystified why they would support Obama’s.

    That being said...he says it expands welfare. I say it is socialist. Same end result. Marxist redistribution of wealth. But it is working...LOL. He is sure hiding it from YOU.
    Let's see if I can explain this to you..
    most blacks voted for Obama; most are against gay marriage, as their vote points out. How hard is that for you to comprehend? The black vote FOR Obama hurt the gay marriage vote. Is that simpler for you to understand?