A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Does stupidity run among nonthinkers? Writing someone else's verbiage

Posted: Jul 1, 2014

as their own is not exactly thinking for themselves. After reading the same talking points from people on different sites, I saw that they aren't original thoughts...at least those against the Hobby Lobby decision...IOW, can't think for themselves?

Why do I say that? Here's why: "In her dissent, Ginsburg lays out a variety of procedures and drugs that could go uncovered if religious employers have their way: “blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others.).” The non-thinkers state Ginsburg's dissent word-for-word without giving her credit and acting that it was in their own words, but I knew it couldn't have been because there were others on other sites mimicking the same exact words.

I was getting furious at the stupidity of some people on those sites. All the naysayers should just STOP and READ THE FREAKING DECISION!!!! It DOES NOT restrict or kill birth control for everyone. It DOES NOT force any company to stop providing birth control. In fact, the only companies it affects are those with a certain amount of employees...not big corporations, only SMALL BUSINESSES that find it hard to pay for the forced Obamacare already. These smaller businesses can REFUSE to offer the 4 DRUGS or they CAN offer those 4 drugs ALONG with the 16 others.

But some of them were not thinking of the alternative... the Obama administration argued that the requirement wasn’t a mandate at all because the companies could have dropped coverage. Note the words "COMPANIES COULD HAVE DROPPED COVERAGE." So some of them would rather have a company fully drop the health care coverage than to allow certain small businesses drop the 4 drugs they consider abortion drugs. That really makes sense, now doesn't it?

From one of the sites I was reading:
"Alito notes that the Obama White House provided an out for nonprofit religious corporations. Instead of paying for birth control themselves, an outside insurance company can do it. Alito asks, why can’t this apply to the for-profit employers, too?"

The justices made clear what the decision was not: It was not an opening for companies to opt out of other health insurance coverage requirements, such as for blood transfusions and vaccinations.

It was not grounds for companies to use a religious objection to justify illegal discrimination against customers. And it was not a way for large, public corporations to get out of even the contraceptive requirement under Obamacare.

A lawyer for Hobby Lobby, Lori Windham, said it was a “complete victory” for her clients, but she pointed to Alito’s language in saying that the impact would be limited beyond the roughly 50 family-owned companies that have brought similar claims.

Get real people. Some of you really have your panties in a wad over nothing. BTW, the government is not allowed to fund abortion so I would think those 4 drugs would be banned from Medicaid, too.

;

You have more patience than I, to type that all out (sm) - LL

[ In Reply To ..]
I was so disgusted down the board, after reading some of the nonsensical posts and hearing the same drivel on TV by the MSM, and reading it on liberal blogs, I couldn't control myself and SHOUTED DOWN BELOW. Thank you very much.

Small business? More than 500 stores and 13,000 employees - Critical reading skills

[ In Reply To ..]
Where did it identify the parameters of what is a small business?

Hmmm. I believe that HL is larger than the MTSO I work for. Once again, if my employer deems it necessary to make my body its business, that is way over the line.

Maybe someday you will get it that it is one little freedom given to the corporations at a time until the workers are indentured servants to the corporate masters.

Just to show how ignorant some people are, yesterday I posted - I hope the pres signs executive order

[ In Reply To ..]
to override the Supreme Court decision and give amnesty to illegals. My post got thumbs up for that! How sad.

This Independence Day I will pray for my country (or what's left of it).

They just can't seem to post without name calling. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Read this board, post after post, and you will see that conservatives can't seem to make any kind of coherent argument about all manner of issues without resorting to lumping people into categories, calling them names, and writing off their concerns.

So you think some people are "ignorant" and it's "sad" that people gave a thumbs up to amnesty for illegals? Perhaps while you are praying to God for our country, you might ask Him for the humility to comprehend the word of Jesus contained in Mark 12:28–33 regarding His greatest commandments.

Too funny! Deflect from the post and make it emotional. - nsmg

[ In Reply To ..]
xxx

Some people are just looking to be offended - just me

[ In Reply To ..]
these days.

She must have been one who gave it a - thumbs up. n/m

[ In Reply To ..]
xxx

The post was nothing more than another insult - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
from a conservative to demean people who don't share their views and a statement about praying for our country. The response spoke about both, so naturally conservatives see that as deflection and then resort to further ridicule.

Interesting that you bring up praying in your post, yet you accuse the person who responded to the idea as the one making it "emotional." In my opinion, that is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

I guess I will take your lead and pray for our country also.

What a stretch. To want the president to sign an - executive order to get what he

[ In Reply To ..]
wants is unconstitutional. I was merely making that point by posting that.

I do pray for the country.

Well now, that would depend on what was contained in the EO. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The president has powers to make decisions for the country, particularly in matters of defense and during times of war and in emergencies. He is granted these powers by the Constitution. EOs are nothing new.

You said: "To want the president to sign an executive order to get what he wants is unconstitutional."

Ummmm, no. It is not unconstitutional for people to want the president to sign an Executive Order. If you are saying that it would be unconstitutional for the president to sign an Executive Order, that might be true. Deciding that an EO is unconstitutional before it's even written seems particularly partisan in my opinion. If you have knowledge of the content of the hypothetical EO, please enlighten the rest of us as to how you know it is unconstitutional.

The president has lots of lawyers telling him what he has the authority to do and not do, etc. Contrary to popular belief, he's not just signing them arbitrarily based on a whim.

How do you know if that was a conservative? - She could be libertarian. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
xxxxx

I know, I know, conservatives are mean and evil, and - want to boil rabbits and make

[ In Reply To ..]
fun of everybody not like them. That's why all you see at Hobby Lobby are old white men. Oh wait....

It's your argument and not anything anyone else said. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I hope you enjoy debating yourself because the only one making those arguments is you.

FYI, ignorant means "not knowing" and it is not an - insult, it just shows how

[ In Reply To ..]
"ignorant" people are of the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Okay, then. - Really

[ In Reply To ..]
I guess based on that assessment, then being truly "ignorant" based on your definition, would be deciding that an EO was unconstitutional even with "not knowing" what was written in it to begin with. Of course there is a separation of powers, but that doesn't mean the president has no power. The truth of the matter is that the president has power that Congress wishes it had.

That's why they're so upset with him. No matter how much they've obstructed him and attempted to get rid of him, he's still more powerful than they are.

It's not supposed to be that way. We do have 3 branches of - government to prevent that.

[ In Reply To ..]
A president should not have that much power, otherwise he would be a king. I thought we fought a war over that.

You are incorrect. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You should review the Constitution to learn the presidential powers. The Constitution gives the POTUS quite a lot of power. That is why both parties want control of the White House.

That statement is scary. No branch has anymore - power than the other.

[ In Reply To ..]
and I have taken Constitution 101, as well as economics 101.

But your statements is telling in more ways than one.

You can post a link to the US Constitution and the limits of - branches and get a thumbs down here. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Fact: There is no such thing as equal power. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Regardless of your educational curriculum, there is no such thing as equal power. The POTUS can either sign a bill or veto it. To borrow a word from a prior POTUS, that makes him the "decider." He's the guy with the most power currently. Now I do realize that we are supposed to have three separate but equal branches with a system of checks and balances, but during the past several decades, Congresses and administrations from BOTH parties have expanded the power and scope of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch.

Separation of the powers, duties of executive branch, - MT62

[ In Reply To ..]
to enforce the laws of the United States.

To be Commander in Chief of the military, to conduct foreign affairs, to negotiate treaties with other nation, to administer the laws of the nation, to address Congress, to nominate members of cabinet, to issues pardons, to renew and signs or veto bills.

Those are the powers given to the executive branch.

Those are some very, very broad powers. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There has been a lot of legislation since the Constitution was written that goes a long way to define the limits and the power of the presidency. Generally speaking, Congress and the Courts have given the president broad powers in carrying out the duties of the office, particularly during times of war and in times of emergency.

Whose Constitution and where does it state that - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]

"quite a lot of power?"

This is what it states in my U.S. Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

"quite a lot of power?"

This is what it states in my U.S. Constitution:
Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article. II:

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Please note Article II, Section 2 above speaks to executive power BUT it goes only to being CIC (note the colon after Section I). Section 3, the word there is "RECOMMEND." Recommend is a big difference from "able to" or "shall have."

And, for your information, that means nothing in the Constitution allows the President to make his own law or like in his speech after HL's ruling, he stated something about an EO, he CANNOT overturn a Supreme Court ruling. Only Congress can do that.

Another straw man argument. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
First off, nobody is arguing that the president has the power to overturn a decision of the SCOTUS, just that he does have the power to write an EO.

I do believe, however, there was mention of the president maybe having the power to write an EO that would have the government pick up the cost of medical care that a "religious corporation" (that is not limited in size, BTW) refused to provide based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby decision. Not sure myself if that would be unconstitutional or not, but I happen to think what the Supreme Corporates of the United States decided was itself against the Constitution.

I don't think corporations are people or religious institutions.

Another ream of boring cut-n-paste rhetoric. - Zzzzzzz.......

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Remember, one of these days we will have a different - party as president, would you be okay

[ In Reply To ..]
for a republican to have that much power as president?

I didn't write the Constitution. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The powers were written in there long ago.

Would I be okay with a Republican having "that much power as president"?

Answer: Been there, done that. For instance, President Bush wrote an Executive Order that started warrantless wiretapping of Americans and also an Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security, among lots of others.

Also, President Reagan has a famous Executive Order 12333 that directs the collection of data of Americans--pretty much a bunch of that stuff Edward Snowden took issue with.

Was I okay with it? Answer: It didn't matter whether I was okay with it or not. The majority elected them (and I voted for Reagan twice, actually), and the Constitution granted them the power of the office of POTUS.

Did it occur to you that those in Congress who disagree with - the president are only representing

[ In Reply To ..]
those who voted them in? So what's wrong with that? If he signs an EO, then he is going against the will of half the people. He is not a king.

Half of the stuff the democrats claim the republicans are against is not true anyway.

That is oversimplification of the truth. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The president was also elected by over half the people. He has veto power over all of it.

Those are the facts.

So when a Rep. pres comes in and signs an EO to override the - previous EO's, then that okay.

[ In Reply To ..]
xx

Yes, it actually is. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It's been done many, many times in history.

That's why they fight so hard for the White House because that is the guy with the most power (even though power is supposed to be separate but equal). When the Republicans were attempting to expand executive powers under Bush, they were expanding it for future presidents. Now that they are attempting to neuter the presidency, anything legislated to that end will neuter all future presidents.

That's a big part of their problem: They think some - made-up invisible ghost will save them.

[ In Reply To ..]
Might as well just uses hexes & magic potions.

I pray for our country too. We are 180 degrees from - 1776, now we are Amerika

[ In Reply To ..]
no msg

I was listening to a Rabbi on TV talk about how - politicians win support

[ In Reply To ..]
by saying that confiscatory rates of taxation are necessary to “give every citizen free medicine,” or “social justice.” They appeal to a higher purpose. There is no social justice in the Bible, but there is righteousness. Then he went on to explain how the Tower of Babel was a metaphor for tyranny.

I just thought it was interesting and applies here.

I think the whole country needs to stop worrying - so much about the bible, and instead -

[ In Reply To ..]
roll up their sleeves, start having some meaningful conversations about the nuts and bolts of re-building the country to its former state (i.e., a strong middle class. You know -- that class that does all the work and pays all the bills). And we need to come up with a new way to elect our leaders, because the current system only elects the richest candidates. (Those who are smart enough, but aren't financially as well-off, never stand a chance.) We need to get some of the fogeys out of the senate, congress, and supreme court, and get some fresh blood and smart minds in there. Because most of those currently running things and making all the final judgements on what is, or isn't "constitutional", don't even have a pulse, let alone a clue.

Not much left of our country, thanks to corporate - greed and hunger for power & wealth. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There are far too many, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid, who can't (or don't want to) see where this is all going. If you want to read an eye-opening blog by a 1% kazillionaire, check this out:

You're not looking at the big picture. Chipping - away: Here a chip, there a chip.

[ In Reply To ..]

Like Obama is stripping our country to nothing, - here's a chip, there's a chip. (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
Someday people are going to pull their heads out and look back and say, why didn't I see this as it was happening? I hope y'all feel responsible, because you (plural) are.

What does that mean? - it makes no sense

[ In Reply To ..]
Please explain.

You're missing the big picture that some corporations have been given sweeping power. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You said: "All the naysayers should just STOP and READ THE FREAKING DECISION!!!! It DOES NOT restrict or kill birth control for everyone. It DOES NOT force any company to stop providing birth control. In fact, the only companies it affects are those with a certain amount of employees...not big corporations, only SMALL BUSINESSES that find it hard to pay for the forced Obamacare already. These smaller businesses can REFUSE to offer the 4 DRUGS or they CAN offer those 4 drugs ALONG with the 16 others."

Wrong. This is quite simply incorrect information. The ruling applies to "closely held corporations" regardless of size. There is absolutely no limit on the number of employees these corporations can have in any way, shape, or fashion. The IRS defines a "closely held corporation" as generally one in which the majority of stock is owned by no more than five people and "is not a personal service corporation." In no way does this decision only apply to small businesses.

Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, the liberal being praised on this board by conservatives said:

"Justice Ginsburg is right -- this is sweeping. People should not get lost in the reference to 'closely held corporations.' These types of businesses are huge in this country and most of the businesses people relate with in their daily lives."

Turley compared Monday's decision to one years ago recognizing the individual right to bear arms. "We're still working out the details of how far that goes. ... That's what's going to happen here. It is a significant game changer." He added that it's part of a "theme" set by the Citizens United ruling that corporations are "people too."

Now, there's the truth from a constitutional law professor.

Not everyone is always going to agree with you, even Supreme Court Justices and constitutional law professors, but that's no need for attitude and screaming words suggesting vulgarities.

What is the definition of "closely held corporations" - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
Those are FAMILY-OWNED corporations. Not missing the point at all. I believe you are missing the point.

The Internal Revenue Service says a "closely held corporation" is generally one in which the majority of stock is owned by no more than five people and "is not a personal service corporation."

BTW, Turley is neither a conservative or a liberal although both sides claim him as "theirs." He's a constitutional lawyer, something that is very important in this country. He takes no sides, he writes legal briefs. ...period.

For example - on 12/3/13, he testified before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" in which he stated:

"Since he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) into law on March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama has failed to execute that law faithfully.

The president has unilaterally taken taxpayer dollars made available by the PPACA and diverted them from their congressionally authorized purposes toward purposes for which no Congress has ever appropriated funds.

His written testimony is here:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20140226/101781/HHRG-113-JU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20140226.pdf

His video testimony is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHmN4yyXOrY&feature=youtu.be

"President Obama’s unfaithfulness to the PPACA is so wanton, it is no longer accurate to say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is “the law of the land.”

Did you happen to miss that one?

If so, he also points to a lot of articles written by Michael Cannon on the IRS, Halbig v. Sebelius,

Or how about the video interview on Real Clear Politics by Stever Kornacki of MSNBC: Jonathan Turley: Obama Has Effectively Rewritten Laws, "He Has Crossed The Constitutional Line"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/25/jonathan_turley_obama_has_effectively_rewritten_laws_he_has_crossed_the_constitutional_line.html

Or there is this writing in the LA Timesin which the last paragraph is reproduced here:
The administration's loss in the Hobby Lobby case is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is not a lethal threat to Obamacare. For critics of the law, Halbig is everything that Hobby Lobby is not. Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support — and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

Thank you, Truthhurts, for translating things for us in an - understandable and truthful manner.

[ In Reply To ..]
I love your posts and look forward to them! You have a very good analytical mind.

Truthful manner? Ummmm, not! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The OP is loaded with incorrect information.

This decision is NOT limited to only small businesses as she states. It does apply to big corporations, which she says it doesn't. In fact, Hobby Lobby is a huge corporation with around 572 stores and around 16,000 full-time employees (not even counting part-time employees).

If Truthhurts has any regard for the actual truth, maybe she'll correct the inaccuracies and admit her interpretation of the decision was incorrect.

Truthhurts is right. - No Twisting.

[ In Reply To ..]
Have a good evening.

So Hobby Lobby is a large corporation. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
And this decision applies to Hobby Lobby, yet conservatives want to pretend it only applies to small businesses with a certain number of employees and not to big corporations.

Okay, then. Anyone can verify the information given in the OP is incorrect. LOL. When they do, you lose all credibility. If you're okay with that, then fabricate away.

If the truth hurts, then the lie is absolute agony!

No, TH is wrong, and can't seem to see past - the trivialized plight of U.S. women.

[ In Reply To ..]
C

"Plight of U.S women"?????? - ??????

[ In Reply To ..]
You've got to be kidding me!!! Women are now suffering because a few family-owned companies may not provide us with 4 types of BC?

Obviously you have no idea how women are treated in other countries all over the world - not allowed to drive, not allowed to vote, not allowed to leave the house without their husband, not allowed to choose their husband (or choose not to get married at all), not allowed to use any type of BC at all, have no rights whatsoever, and not to mention being stoned to death for being raped.

I think this needs to be put into the correct perspective - this is hardly a reason for women to start burning their bras again.

You're losing credibility and here's why. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Almost every day conservatives are on this board arguing how this country is becoming a third-world country where our rights are being taken away by "the regime." Today you are arguing everything is fine because women in third-world countries have it so much worse than America, and you give a list of things they can't do to prove how great things are in this country. LOL.

You can't have it both ways depending on the issue, and you're missing the big picture with this issue as well. Corporations in this country have been given protections now as religious institutions. Employers' rights to make decisions for employees based on their religion was just affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Now that's what a majority of us see as change by the regime, even if the minority doesn't quite get it.

You're the one who lost - credibility...

[ In Reply To ..]
by comparing me to every other conservative on this board.

You don't know me, you don't know my political leanings, and you don't know my religious beliefs.

That's okay, though. I'm sure you know the old saying about opinions and how everyone has one.

Disagree. Those posts are narrow-minded and - inflammatory. nm

[ In Reply To ..]

TY. but some posters here and other sites don't think so. ;) (nm) - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
.

The answer is yes, the left looks at everything - as political and not about country

[ In Reply To ..]
and it's about advancing their agenda. They get everyone stirred up, like with this issue. As you can see here, even when trying to shed light on the fact that this company still offers 16 different types of birth control and they pay twice the minimum wage, since they are considered a conservative company, then they are attacked.

We need to get back to individuality and not mass group think, on both sides. This country is so divided.

Similar Messages:

Oct 15, 2014
CNN is reporting that the second nurse was given permission by the CDC to fly on that plane to Cleveland and back even though she had a temperature of 99.5°F. ...

Nov 12, 2014
Link Below. Soon we will be getting ourselves checked for Stupidity Positive/negative. ...

Apr 28, 2010
First, of course, but hardly worth mentioning since everyone already knows it perfectly well, is the fact that the Arizona law does NOTHING other than to mirror the Federal law that is not being enforced. To suggest that Arizonans should do NOTHING about the incredible wave of crime and violence related to illegal immigration is nothing but stupid and requires a breath-taking degree of tolerance for governmental negligence. The FIRST and PRIMARY obligation of government is the safety and protec ...

May 08, 2015
a few videos of the Tea Party rallies getting out of hand, acting like the fascists they are called, rioting, killing, looting, any of that aberrant behavior, I'd be very happy. If you can't, please shut your pie holes. You know nothing about the Tea Party. Nothing. I'll wait for some proof. ...

Jul 23, 2010
I know that it will be followed by another silly tit-for-tat argument instead of some real, honest, self reflection, I am sorry to say. I find it sadly humorous that a certain official increased the national debt from 5 Trillion to 11 Trillion dollars in 8 years, more than any administration, basically bankrupting the Treasury and adding a tax burden of gigantic proportions to future American citizens. I find it sadly humorous that during the grounding of all aircraft just after S ...

Nov 24, 2012
I'm participating in NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month). The idea is you write a 50,000 word novel in the month of November, good, bad, or ugly, just get the words down. My main character is an MT and she and her co-worker are talking about bad dictators. I could use more ideas. What is the funniest/strangest thing you have ever heard a doctor say while transcribing? ...

Oct 31, 2011
Real-Time Writing 200+ words per minute - 100% accuracy I use the Stenomachine to input my text. I am up to 150 words per minute which translates into timed writings of 400 lines per hour. I am curious to know if anyone of my fellow transcriptionists is using the Stenomachine and what success have you had with it. Also, if there is anyone interested in finding out about steno real-time writing go to You-Tube site "Court Reporting Contest - 280 Words Per Minute! - You ...

Sep 21, 2012
on their hands, a gentle reminder from Rick Perry: http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/250923-rick-perry-tweets-response-to-obamas-for-all-campaign ...