Arnold Schwarzenegger Hiding Behind His Goons From Nurses

[Itsthetruth]

Haven't you noticed that the hoary old line, "Bush lied about WMD" has done a subtle disappearing act from liberal discourse?

That's because the matter was settled a long time ago. Bush lied about Iraq's alleged WMD's. I can't help it if the obvious has escaped your attention.

 

[Itsthetruth]

We need to prove nothing,

That's true. You don't have to prove anything, especially since you can't.

So go ahead and continue to make whatever outlandish claims you wish.

And if anyone should challenge wild charges and claims you may make in the future, just say: "I don't have to prove anything I say is true!"

I suppose you don't. But, do you really think anyone with a brain will lend much credence to your posts? I suppose you also want the American people to blindly accept anything and everything Bush says as the "gospel truth". I think many Germans did that with Hitler's pronouncements and Russians with Joseph Stalin's statements. I hope they aren't your role models.

People who are incapable of critical and independent thought usually do that. Take your blinders off!

 

[musicman]

Sorry. That's not the way debates and discussions work. It's not up to me to prove that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. You should know that a person can't prove a negative. For example, if I claim you beat up your wife, you don't have to prove that you don't beat up your wife. If I make that charge against you I must back it up with evidence.

So it's up to the Bush government to prove that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Where's the evidence to back up that claim?

Your turn boy!

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball, shall we? I'm not talking about Iraq and 9/11; I'm talking about the Russians moving WMDs out of Iraq and into Syria. We have provided profuse documentation of this assertion, and no serious liberal in the public arena has bothered to try to refute it. Why do you think that is?

You say it's bullshit. Back up your claim. Show us any credible refutation beyond "it doesn't sound right to me". THAT'S how it works.

 

[Trinity]

People who are incapable of critical and independent thought usually do that. Take your blinders off and you would see me for the retard that I am!

Vous êtes un idiot complet! :duh3:



http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en

 

[musicman]

Itsthetruth:

I must confess, I share your curiosity on one aspect of the Russian/WMD connection: Why hasn't the right made more political hay out of these findings?

I can understand the left wanting to bury this topic. When they themselves broke the story last fall, they pranced around like retarded little peacocks - for about thirty seconds. Then, the light bulb came on, and they realized that they were cutting their own throats - obliterating their idiotic "Bush lied about WMD" bullshit with their own ingenious expose' journalism. Their keeping mum on the story is, therefore, somewhat understandable.

But, why the right? The only thing I can figure is that the Bush Adminisrtation feels it has enough on its plate without getting into a pissing contest with Russia right this minute. I honestly don't know.

 

[Itsthetruth]

Why is it that anyone who seems to have truth or intelligent or some derivative of the two in their screen name, they never have anything to say that reflects their screen names?

Can you give us an example?

 

[Said1]

Can you give us an example?

Hey look it's Corky from "life goes on"! You sound bitter now. Not so lovable.

 

[Itsthetruth]

Hey look it's Corky from "life goes on"! You sound bitter now. Not so lovable.

Bitter? Hardly. Right-wingnuts just have a hard time backing up their claims with facts and evidence.

Or they engage in childish pranks by changing peoples posts and avatars.

Now what dummy on this board would engage in such activity?

Care to come forward or are you a coward like most right-wingnuts? Should we just call you "no balls? I like balls myself, wish I had a pair!

 

[Said1]

Bitter? Hardly. Right-wingnuts just have a hard time backing up their claims with facts and evidence.

You spell pretty good for a middle aged man with downs syndrome.

 

[Trinity]

Bitter? Hardly. Right-wingnuts just have a hard time backing up their claims with facts and evidence.

Now how the hell would a wingnut be able to back up any facts, considering it's just a piece of metal!

 

[no1tovote4]

Bitter? Hardly. Right-wingnuts just have a hard time backing up their claims with facts and evidence.

Or they engage in childish pranks by changing peoples posts and avatars.

Now what dummy on this board would engage in such activity?

Care to come forward or are you a coward like most right-wingnuts? Should we just call you "no bal*s?

Wow. Paranoid.

 

[Said1]

Wow. Paranoid.

Paranoia, sign of down syndrome I'm afraid. And the inability to complete a thought, hence all the edits.

 

[Trinity]

Paranoia, sign of down syndrome I'm afraid. And the inability to complete a thought, hence all the edits.

:rotflmao:

 

[Trinity]

Should we just call you "no balls? I like balls myself, wish I had a pair!

This would explain your views!

 

[krisy]

This would explain your views!

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[no1tovote4]

Sorry. That's not the way debates and discussions work. It's not up to me to prove that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. You should know that a person can't prove a negative. For example, if I claim you beat up your wife, you don't have to prove that you don't beat up your wife. If I make that charge against you I must back it up with evidence.

So it's up to the Bush government to prove that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Where's the evidence to back up that claim?

Your turn boy!

I already showed you that even in the articles you posted he made no such claim. Since you seem to think he claimed this then it is up to you to prove that. Don't attempt to slip away from the fact that even in your "evidence" that you posted before there was nary a mention that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

 

[Itsthetruth]

The Bush government clearly tried to create the impression that somehow Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. That is rather obvious and isn't questioned by any serious political person from the right, left or in between.

That's why a majority of people, especially Republicans, believed that until recently. It took awhile for the truth to emerge just like it took almost two years for the people to discover that the Bush government lied about Iraq's alleged WMD's.

You can deny the truth all you want but the facts speak for themselves and you haven't refuted a single one of them. All you have provided is empty rhetoric devoid of facts.

And that's the truth!

 

[Avatar4321]

The Bush government clearly tried to create the impression that somehow Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. That is rather obvious and isn't questioned by any serious political person from the right, left or in between.

That's why a majority of people, especially Republicans, believed that until recently. It took awhile for the truth to emerge just like it took almost two years for the people to discover that the Bush government lied about Iraq's alleged WMD's.

You can deny the truth all you want but the facts speak for themselves and you haven't refuted a single one of them. All you have provided is empty rhetoric devoid of facts.

And that's the truth!

I can't believe you really think we are stupid enough to fall for this. all we have to do is read the State of the Union address and other speeches made by the President before the Iraqi liberation to know what you are saying is a bunch of Bosh. its not even like it takes that much effort.

The fact is its the Democrats who have been trying to disprove a 911 connection that was never made. I didnt allow them to use the straw man then why should i let you use it now (In fact im willing to bet no one here was letting Dems get away with that straw man before the war).

If you want us to refute something you say, you have to prove it to begin with. Then maybe Ill consider it if i dont have anything more important to do.

BTW out of curiosity how old are you?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Let's get back to the original topic...The Gropinator and nurses.

Ahnuld issued an emergency order to raise the patient/nurse ratio on a med-surg unit from 5 patients per nurse to 6 patients per nurse. Now, I would have given my right arm to have had only had 6 patients when I worked on med/surg/telemetry. More often than not I had 10-12 patients on any given night. At least half of these were active chest painers who I'd be titrating drips on all night with the other half being nursing home patients who were confused and trying to crawl out of their beds. And then, there'd be the nights when we had 4 nurses, 4 aides, 48 patients and two codes running simultaneously at opposite ends of the unit. And let's not forget the rummy that would come up from the ER with an active GI bleed, DT's and puking blood all over the floor.

So, while I would not normally support increasing the patient to nurse ratios, nurses in California should be grateful that they would've only had to take 6 patients. I would love to see such ratios nation-wide, but until we get far more grads through nursing school than we currently have, it'll never happen. So, my advice to the nurses in California is to enjoy what they've got while they've got it, because it's not going to last.

 

[OCA]

Let's get back to the original topic...The Gropinator and nurses.

Ahnuld issued an emergency order to raise the patient/nurse ratio on a med-surg unit from 5 patients per nurse to 6 patients per nurse. Now, I would have given my right arm to have had only had 6 patients when I worked on med/surg/telemetry. More often than not I had 10-12 patients on any given night. At least half of these were active chest painers who I'd be titrating drips on all night with the other half being nursing home patients who were confused and trying to crawl out of their beds. And then, there'd be the nights when we had 4 nurses, 4 aides, 48 patients and two codes running simultaneously at opposite ends of the unit. And let's not forget the rummy that would come up from the ER with an active GI bleed, DT's and puking blood all over the floor.

So, while I would not normally support increasing the patient to nurse ratios, nurses in California should be grateful that they would've only had to take 6 patients. I would love to see such ratios nation-wide, but until we get far more grads through nursing school than we currently have, it'll never happen. So, my advice to the nurses in California is to enjoy what they've got while they've got it, because it's not going to last.

Who are you kidding, you'd be busy sucking off the new intern in the janitor closet.