How did the McCain provide this info??...
Posted By: nm on 2008-10-22
In Reply to: Looks like the McC camp is providing - endless fodder for ridicule...sm
xx
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
Just for your info, I voted for McCain, main reason
because who the O associates with and now Chief of Staff? Confirms everything that I thought. Still have my McCain sign out in the front lawn.
You can't provide them. Just say so. lol.
nm
So are you saying you are not able to provide
one single solitary link, citation or reference? I keep up with all sorts of news, though I must confess I am not a Fixed News fanatic. I am simply asking you to back up your own claim. Either you can or you can't.
It is as American as apple pie to challenge close election results and certainly is not a phenomenon confined to the blue side of the aisle. In fact, a fixed recount was the ONLY way W was able to slither into office in 2000 (can you say hanging chads?).
Are recounts only legitimate when they favor the GOP, as was the case of Saxby Chambliss in Georgia? Thank God we avoided one in Alaska. We could have ended up with a convicted felon being shunned in the Senate chambers and defeated GOP VP candidate/Gov Palin annointing, er I mean appointing herself as his successor. What a disaster that would have been.
In any case, recounts have their place. It does seem that Coleman's claim to victory may have been a tad premature, even though he did arrogantly concede that Franken did have the right to "purse official review." This was mighty big of him, considering it is mandated in Minnesota when the margins are less than 1%.
If you are defending Cornyn in his assertion that the process should "play it self out," why do you have such a problem seeing that happen in Minnesota? Could it have anything to do with the looming threat of supermajority? Suppose we just wait and see which way the ball bounces. If it doesn't happen to land in your court, better luck next time.
but they will also provide
energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil is such a big thing.....I would think that would be top priority, but it doesn't seem to be. I still say we look into solar, wind, biofuels, and go ahead and drill where we know we have oil. It is just stupid of us to continue giving money to people who hate us.
Would you please provide a link so we can see what it really says?
//
Can you provide support for this
All the research I have seen says that ectopic pregnancies cannot survive, that an embryo must be in the uterus to thrive. I would love to see some support/back up of this if you have any (I am honestly curious, not trying to be difficult!)
Thanks.
Just WHO do you think does provide jobs?
the middle class?
Can you provide a link to what you are saying? Thanks. nm
nm
I see sam has yet to provide us with evidence
are going to be given to people who are not paying tax. Show me what in his plan describes a refundable (AKA non-wastable) tax credit. So far, all I can see is that sam does not understand the basic concepts of socialism, Marxism, tax cuts and tax credits. Tax cuts are a reduction in taxes, based on lowering a tax rate. You cannot reduce a rate on tax in the absence of tax due. Tax credits for the most part are paid against TAXES DUE. The 2 exceptions in the US are the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit
So show me where Obama has said that his tax credit would be a refundable/non-wastable credit. Also, naturally, I am still waiting for sam's answer to my original question on how it is that progressive tax reform is only socialist when it is Obama reform but no other president who has reformed the tax structure is a socialist? Please answer that question and the one about the refundable tax credit. Direct answers would be very much appreciated.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the REAL content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's boring. It's a trick you probably learned from Obama, who figures most people won't even notice that he's changed the conversation.
We notice that you're changing the conversation, so you lose.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the actual content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's painfully transparent and truly boring.
I won't answer your absurd accusations again and return the other readers to the program previously in progress. You just carry on with yourself.
In an effort to provide some information sm
I was on vacation when the posts were made, but a friend of mine copied them and sent them to me. They were no exactly death threats, but under a post wishing President Bush Happy Birthday, there were two posts saying something to the effect that they hoped Bush died and burned in hell. Also, every single thing you accuse conservatives of in this long post, every SINGLE thing, has been committed on this board by liberals. You might also notice that most of the conservative posters have stopped coming over here, something the liberal posters have not been able to do, as their drive-by postings still appear sporadically and predictably.
Please provide factual evidence of this...
....but MUST be from a nonpartison source absolutely. Actually I thought it was just as much the case with the Republican party, but I freely admit that I have no concrete statistics at this point to back that up.
Please provide substantiation for your claim.
After all, you are not GW who can manipulate the truth as he pleases. But anyway, please provide the "burn in hell for eternity" quote that seems to appear over and over. I notice that this "quote" also changes slightly each time it is "quoted."
I will provide an answer to your question
I feel it is in poor taste to adopt the moniker of a liberal-leaning poster on a liberal board and then post anti-liberal messages. This is common sense and if you have to ask why it matters...well you are probably lacking common sense, as well as basic manners.
But thought I'd try explaining it anyway.
Signed,
?? (am changing to Teddy, a less ambiguous moniker)
Saddam Hussein would provide anyone...
with anything if he thought it would be used to help bring down the United States and would make a "deal with the devil" (Al Qaeda) in order to attack the US, and I think anyone who thought differently would be disingenuous to say the least. Mortal enemies are often joined together by their hatred of some other entity....in this case of the United States, and Americans.
As to the 18 generals lined up behind Obama...what about the hundreds not lined up with him?
We will definitely disagree on this one.
Have a good night.
can you provide me a source so I can hear it? x
x
Please provide details and link regarding the...sm
42 meth labs in Wasilla. I have not heard of this. Was it while SP was in office as mayor there, or what?
I truly want to know....thanks.
6 mil provide a bit more of an incentive to recant.
su
Show me where Obama has said he would provide
did not earn income. Try to stay on task with this Sam. The associations argument is a one-way conversation headed toward a dead-end destination. Let's talk PROGRESSIVE TAX...which is the central issue here.
SP seems to be fine with windfall profits....call them what you like, rebate of whatever, but they are still windfall profits redistributed oil company revenues to the owners of "collectively owned resources"...her words, not mine.
Did you look at the chart? Do you have any comment on those telling historical rates? What about McCain's intent to keep the progressive tax structure as is...since it has serve our CAPITALIST economy well in the past.
Your argument is bankrupt. No soup for you.
Interesting that you provide a link
directly addresses and refutes your allegations that Snopes is steeped in liberal bias.
Quote:
Is TruthorFiction.com a more reliable source?
TruthorFiction.com has condemned this anonymous attack against Snopes.com and lauded the website as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.
What's ironic about the claim that TruthorFiction.com is more reliable than Snopes is that when you compare the contents of the two, their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way (does that mean TruthorFiction.com is biased too?).
Where the sites do differ is in the depth and quality of their coverage. On Snopes.com the Mikkelsons go to great lengths to address the finer details of each text. They supply critical analysis, as well as background and contextual information. They cite sources.
Not to disparage TruthorFiction.com owner Rich Buhler -- who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource -- but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best.
Snopes.com boasts a 12-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.
Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.
You won'the provide links because you have none, and
FREEREPUBLIC???? Are you kidding me? They are known to be the whackiest of all the whackos. The majority of republicans even disown them, but that certainly explains a lot about your mentality.
Well a hand up will not provide the people of New Orleans with sm
what they need in this time of crisis.
What are you smokin'? Do you think these people don't need emergency money now, they have lost everything.
Good grief. There are mannnny Americans who still live paycheck to paycheck and if the little they have is wiped out, they have nowhere to go. But some people don't see it that way. I call them the I got mine generation.
I guess Harvard fails to provide that course, eh?
x
Then why didnt O just provide the REAL documents
nm
No bridger, you don't provide the links every time. That's
the point.
Mrs., if there ever was anyone posturing in a contest, you would definitely be the winner.
I don't intend to argue with you. I have cautioned you because you are putting this board and its owners at risk.
I don't click on links people provide because my
x
I worry every time I provide the government
Where will this end up? How long will it stay there? How will it be used? Do I trust the guy presently in office? Congress? Will I trust the next crop of office holders? There is a reason why people are going *off the grid*
Please provide verifiable quotes to back up your claim.
I am not right or left and think you are all pretty much full of it but I have to see allegations made without proof. I haven't seen the staunchest of Republicans doing anything of the sort. I really hate when people throw things out without any kind of fact behind it.
Do not cut and paste long text...provide links!
Sheesh!
Please provide a reference showing that you were the first to mention Alinsky?
As you can see by the post below, the first reference to Alinsky found on this forum was made by Jules on 09/02/2008 regarding Alinsky's son's letter to the Boston Globe. Could you please provide us with an earlier reference indicating that you were the first to have mentioned Alinksy?
You can't provide any examples of "gross inaccuracies in the article" because there aren
Why don't you prove me wrong? Is it because you CAN'T?
Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor
nm
Here's a little info for you.
You brandish the name of your saviour like it was a badge of honor.
Did it ever occur to you that some people don't believe in your religion/saviour? Perhaps it never occurred to you that there are OTHER RELIGIONS out there in this world that other people believe in. Your salvation might be another person's idea of mythology.
It's kind of sad that your religious philosophy is to shove your crap down everyone else's throat.
Bush is a nutcase. This country is going down the tubes. And, after reading the blurb above about how he said God told him to clean up the mess in Iraq and God told him to declare war on the mideast, I fear that this country is really in deep doo-doo. I shudder to think what the next three years will be like under this administration. A president has to please ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one segment of the population.
As far as the supreme court and the abortion issue, well let's put it like this. If abortion becomes a crime AGAIN - women will be like third world citizens - AGAIN. Abortion will not stop, it will go back to the alleys, backrooms and other dirty places where it used to be done and women will DIE. And to use a worn-out phase - If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Here is more info. sm
The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:
We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent. (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one.
The corporate portion of the NWO is dominated by international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty - the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - changed the name to Windsor in 1914), are high level players in the oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the NWO. The decision making nerve centers of this effort are in London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
Would welcome info.
I would like to hear both your thoughts on stem cell research. I know little about it, really.
don't know where you get your info from
Probably some whack-job radio show who spew only one side (their side). The hatred those shows put out I still don't understand why people listen - or believe it! Guess they all feed off of "hate". And its on both sides! I've voted both. I voted for Clinton the first term. Two weeks later got a rude awakening on what he was about. Voted republican the next time. Then voted against Gore cos I didn't want a third term Clinton, but I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against and it has been like that ever since. You said McCain has more insight into the real world? Are you kidding? He is like Bush - exactly alike! He does not have insight into the real world and everytime he says something he has to be corrected by his closest peers. It reminds me of when I was watching Regan and Nancy Regan had to help him along. McCains wife is a billionairess. I have seen nothing to show that McCain will help the people. All he's interested in is keeping the war going for the next hundred years. Then somewhere along the line someone must have told him its popular among the people and they'll vote for you if you tell them you have a plan for bringing the troops home, so he started saying that. The truth is he has no intention of bringing troops home. And if the war ends in Iraq/Afganistan he'll send them somewhere else. He refuses to sit down and talk to leaders of other countries. Just "take-em-out". As for new world order. Take another look ....they are all for it. This is nothing new with leaders - Hillary especially. What she has in her sights is creating one world government and she wants to rule over it. But I've been listing to Obama talk and I hear nothing of that (I'm still not voting for him, but I haven't heard any of what you seem to be hearing). As for him changing the Seal of the US President - I sure don't know where your getting your info but that is just plain wrong. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or some other nut case republican radio show host is saying. And as for his church. I have heard other people talk about the church and it is not all hate. So they take a sound bite from one sermon and blow it up. Let's talk about Hague (a supporter of McCain), or how about Fallwell when he was alive (another supporter of the republicans). They are the most hateful and biggotted people. They don't talk about love (unless you happen to be their religion). You can keep religion. I want to be closer to God so therefore I am staying away from all churches. So go ahead and vote republican, I myself will be thinking for myself and deciding for myself, not what someone else tells me I should do.
Info
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
Here is some info...
In the middle of this blog's home page is a section called "Seriously?" in which someone's comments are quoted incredulously. It currently features John McCain and his reply at Saturday's Saddleback Forum when asked to define "rich": "I think if you're just talking about income," McCain said, "how about $5 million?"
To be fair to McCain, his answer was more nuanced than that.
As soon as he said it, he gave the following qualification (note, too, his own use of the word "seriously"):
I don't think, seriously that—the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously—and I'm sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is...that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
...So it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life. And we all know the challenges, my friends.
McCain's answer was a good one. He refused to play the game of defining "rich," because the premise of that game is that "rich" people aren't taxed enough. The percentage of one's income forked over to the federal government is hardly the best indicator of one's contributions to the American economy—not least because it assumes lawmakers spend the money wisely. Allow individuals to retain their earnings and they invest in companies, buy new cars, or remodel their houses—all of which keeps the economy humming. As hard as it is to imagine, even nitwitted Paris Hilton has her benefits. Her spending sprees keep shops open, salespeople employed, and importers, manufacturers, marketers, and a whole host of others in business.
But what was Barack Obama's answer to what constitutes rich? A family earning $250,000. Given that he proposes raising the top marginal rate to 39.6 percent, that would mean the family is left with $151,000—and that's before local, state, property, and sales taxes.
So for Obama, leaving a family with $151,000 means they're rich? Er, "Seriously?"
Really...SERIOUSLY???
Some info for you on the ads
Said I wouldn't be back because of all the bickering and fighting going on, but I came here today to let you know about the following information. I think everyone will find it interesting.
WGAL-TV reporter Matt Belanger will be looking at the ads of both candidates in the coming weeks and break them down so we can be INFORMED voters. Here are his first investigations. He will be doing this every week until election day. It may help some people on this board make up their minds without going to the trash sites for garbage news. Enjoy and PLEASE STOP FIGHTING!!!!
If the links don’t work, go to www.wgal.com and in the search box at the top left, put in “Video 8: On Your Side.”
http://www.wgal.com/video/17508920/index.html
http://www.wgal.com/video/17491060/index.html
Thanks for this info. I would like to see it, too. nm
x
A little info on this......
http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/BONoUsCitizen.htm
More info here....
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/did_il_abortion.html
August 22, 2008
Did IL abortion law protect babies aborted alive?
Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.
For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama's original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny....
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night's show, "there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be - cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive."
Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama's opposition to Born Alive:
Was there a law in place? As National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20...
IL law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.
National Right to Life adds:
Obama's defenders... fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb."...
Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), "Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on 'born alive' definitions or other definitions." To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.
Also see this letter we received from Republican pro-life IL Attorney General Jim Ryan in July 2000 stating he could find no law Christ Hospital was violating (click to enlarge):
![Jim](http://www.jillstanek.com/Jim%20Ryan%20letter%20page%201-thumb-500x822.jpg")
info about AP
They are now free to put opinions in their so-called news. Check it out if you don't believe me. It's not like it wasn't that way previously, but now it's out in the open.
Thanks for the info....(sm)
I hadn't really thought that much about how much manipulation Israel itself does with these groups. I've always looked more from the aspect of US intervention and backing. I'll have to read up on that. Thanks.
More info...........
This lady did give birth prematurely to the child (only 3 to 4 months pregnant) with several severe conditions and, of course, it still is in critical condition, and this was in January she gave birth.
So if the child is living and in critical condition, the mother is now in custody and in jail and could face 20 years in prison, why is it our precious president thinks it's no big deal to allow late term abortions, allow a STILL living aborted baby to lie in a bucket until dies an agonizing death because Obama says it doesn't deserve medical care even though the child is still alive and abortion didn't kill it, and the doctors and nurses present aren't put in jail and the mother who chose to have this sick procedure isn't put in jail?
This country is going to he!! in a handbasket fast!!!
thanks for the info
Thanks for the nice reply - I was a little hesitant to post, thought I might get blasted as I realize this can be a sensitive topic.
I just posted because I believe there were misconceptions about what a universal sytem might entail. And obviously any attempt so have something similar in the United States would be a massive undertaking and probably would be a different model than what we have. Just want to mention a couple of things. Someone mentioned government interference, not specifically referring to Canada, but more to the US. There really isn't much here - everyone has a health card and wherever we go we use it. Within your own province and going to most other provinces (excluding Quebec, where they always like to be different) most of the time there is no government-related paperwork, no permission for tests/surgeries/etc., and everything is between the patient and doc.
I realize some doctors would no longer be involved in direct patient care, but some here are not as well, although I would think universal coverage would mean fewer doctors needed as legal consultants, people wouldn't need to sue to cover their medical bills?
Another bonus. I've been working as an MT for 29 years, for many different places, have never been employed at a place where our work is sent offshore (probably happens, but not to such a degree). Maybe combination of health care not being run by private interests and I believe we have stricter privacy laws covering all personal information, including health-related.
Thanks
Where did you get your info?
I saw nothing in the bill that included all you included in your statement. As I read it, it just allows for stiffer penalties for hate crimes.
I would definitely like to check this out more.
Actually, thanks for posting this....appreciate the info.
Not sure what all the rants are all about. You were simply echoing what Santorum said in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Thanks for sharing this article.
A little info PK, or should I say *Stephen*
Your...his post was deleted because they were accompanied by profanity. The usual left spin machine is in full swing here.
If you simply follow the rules and don't curse people you will find your posts have true staying power.
This is interesting info, but does not add anything to...sm
THIS debate. Not buying it...Clinton can not be used as a scapegoat here.
If you believe the allegations and conspiracy theories against Clinton, why turn a deaf ear to Bush? That is partison ignorance.
|
