McCain used this expression back in 2007 referring to Hillary's
Posted By: mt on 2008-09-10
In Reply to: Please tell me he didn't say that - not a good thing
health care proposal.
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
John McCain said the same thing on 10/11/2007 sm
He said Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan was "eerily reminiscent" of the plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s and said "I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Are you referring to McCain and Palin inside
he going to go in that poor child's home every day and tell their momma to get her butt home from the whorehouse and the bar and take care of her children? He gonna tell their daddy to get off his sorry lazy butt and take care of his children and stop knocking up every girl he can?
I am referring to Obama when saying (unlike McCain)
nm
Relax. I was referring to the McCain camp.
x
Voting McCain, and still a Hillary supporter...nm
Why do you think that Hillary and McCain did not raise the B/C issue?
Do you think maybe it is because there was no merit to it and everyone knew it? The people who were most directly affected by it are not saying anything about it - the other presidential candidates...
So, honest opinion, why are they not whooping and hollering?
Yep, even McCain supported Hillary, that was nice. nm
nm
I am not a John SYDNEY McCain supporter either. Nor do I support Hillary DIANE Rodham Clinton.
I merely put out what I have read. My opinion is just that. My opinion. Whether you believe it or not is not the point. I put in the link so that those who think differently than I do could look for themselves. It is not that difficult to understand. So does using his full name mean something bad? I don't think so. I use my full name when necessary. If it makes you feel better, then I will repost everything saying Barack Obama. Basically what the article says is that if the Global Poverty bill is passed then you will be paying $8,500 in taxes to a government entity who serves no useful function other than to line it's pockets with the money of the American taxpayers. That is US....you and me.
Personally, I don't want the government to get anymore of my money than they already do regardless of the need. I work too hard for what salary I make to give it away because it is the "feel good" thing to do.
This is my opinion and you are entitled to your opinion also.
PS: I do know what his names mean but thank you for sharing that anyway.
the expression you want is "couldn't care less" nm
x
I am struck by the serious, if not somber expression
Flanked by more than a dozen economic advisors, Obama expressed his concern over the recent jobs report and today's news about the auto industry. He laid out his priorities for addressing economic crisis:
Implement jumpstart of economy measures outlines in his campaign plan, extension of unemployment benefits, assistance to state and local govts to prevent their problems from "compounding the problem," immediate passage of an economic stimulus package with repeated emphasis on jobs, jobs, jobs. Raising taxes seems to be on the back burner for the moment, with emphasis on tax cuts to middle class.
A *freebie*??? Ah, yes, another childish expression...LOL
It is truly sad to see what should be mature grownups acting like CHILDREN! Stop being SORE LOSERS!! YOU LOST. THE GOOD GUYS WON! Grow UP!
I could have sworn a few months back McCain camp
Was I just hallucinating or what?
We also have the constitutional right to the free expression thereof....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Center on the words or prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is our constitutional right to freely express our religious views. You want to deny us that constitutional right do you?
You are wrong. John McCain called Obama back....sm
personally and agreed to a joint statement. Minutes later, John McCain held a news conference wanting to postpone the debate and suspend his campaign, asking Obama to do the same. Hello?
he used a phrase - the same phrase that McCain used several times against Hillary - nm
x
One Wish For 2007 (see inside for details)...sm
If you could see ONE THING come to fruition in 2007, politically, culturally, economically, socially, JUST ONE THING above all others, what would that be?
Who controlled congress until 2007 whenever
Which side of congress voted down any suggestion of setting time limits or considering troop withdrawals. Which candidate voted against the war 5 years ago? Which candidate brought a timetable for troop withdawal up for consideration in February 2007? Who lobbied to defeat that initiative? Which party is now trying to highjack that same initiative and take credit for it in an election year? Simple questions. Direct answers, please.
According to the 2007 Census Bureau
figures Louisiana's population consists of 65% white, 32% black. Mississippi 60% white, 37% black. Also, the entire state of Louisiana is not contained in the city of New Orleans just as New York City is not the entire state of New York, nor is LA the entire state of California.
Link August 2007!. Their system is starting
nm
Yes, it is from 2007 and says the same as those from 2008 - where is a link showing bankrupt?
I cannot find anything like that.
Nation has lost 4.4 million jobs since recession began in Dec. 2007
Unemployment rate soars to 8.1 percent
Employers resort to even bigger layoffs as they scramble to survive
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
updated 8:02 a.m. CT, Fri., March. 6, 2009
WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs.
Both figures were worse than analysts expected and the Labor Department's report shows America's workers being clobbered by a relentless wave of layoffs.
The net loss of jobs in February came after even deeper payroll reductions in the prior two months, according to revised figures. The economy lost 681,000 jobs in December and another 655,000 in January.
Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 4.4 million jobs, more than half of which occurred in the past four months.
Employers are shrinking their work forces at alarming clip and are turning to other ways to slash costs — including trimming workers' hours, freezing wages or cutting pay — because the recession has eaten into their sales and profits. Customers at home and abroad are cutting back as other countries cope with their own economic problems.
With employers showing no appetite to hire, the unemployment jumped to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent in January. That was the highest since December 1983, when the jobless rate was 8.3 percent.
All told, the number of unemployed people climbed to 12.5 million. In addition, the number of people forced to work part time for "economic reasons" rose by a sharp 787,000 to 8.6 million. That's people who would like to work full time but whose hours were cut back or were unable to find full-time work.
Meanwhile, the average work week in February stayed at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December.
Job losses were widespread in February.
Construction companies eliminated 104,000 jobs. Factories axed 168,000. Retailers cut nearly 40,000. Professional and business services got rid of 180,000, with 78,000 jobs lost at temporary-help agencies. Financial companies reduced payrolls by 44,000. Leisure and hospitality firms chopped 33,000 positions.
The few areas spared: education and health services, as well as government, which boosted employment last month.
A new wave of layoffs hit this week.
General Dynamics Corp. said Thursday it will lay off 1,200 workers due partly to plummeting sales of business and personal jets that forced it to cut production. Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., and Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, undersea telecommunications systems and wireless equipment, also are trimming payrolls.
"This is basically cleaning house for a lot of firms," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia. "They are using the first quarter to cut back employment and figure out what they want."
Disappearing jobs and evaporating wealth from tanking home values, 401(k)s and other investments have forced consumers to retrench, driving companies to lay off workers. It's a vicious cycle in which all the economy's negative problems feed on each other, worsening the downward spiral.
"The economy is in a tailspin. Businesses are jettisoning jobs at an unprecedented pace," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research.
The country is getting bloodied by fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises_ the worst since the 1930s. And there's no easy fix for a quick turnaround, economists said.
President Barack Obama is counting on a multipronged assault to lift the country out of recession: a $787 billion stimulus package of increased federal spending and tax cuts; a revamped, multibillion-dollar bailout program for the nation's troubled banks; and a $75 billion effort to stem home foreclosures.
Even in the best-case scenario that the relief efforts work and the recession ends later in 2009, the unemployment rate is expected to keep climbing, hitting 9 percent or higher this year. In fact, the Federal Reserve thinks the unemployment rate will stay elevated into 2011. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013.
Businesses won't be inclined to ramp up hiring until they are sure any economic recovery has staying power.
The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent in the final three months of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, and it will probably continue to shrink during the first six months of this year.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier this week that recent economic barometers "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labor market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks."
Consumers’ growing frugality has hammered automakers, among other industries. General Motors Corp.'s auditors on Thursday raised "substantial doubt" about the auto giant’s ability to continue operations, and the company said it might have to seek bankruptcy protection, sending its shares below $2.
Bill Hampel, chief economist for the Credit Union National Association, said his group’s members are reporting record increases in deposits. Government figures show the savings rate jumped to 5 percent in January from zero last spring. That’s the highest rate since 1995 and a much faster shift than he had expected, Hampel said.
Consumer spending makes up about 70 percent of the economy. It topped out at 71 percent in 2005, Hampel said, but will likely drop by 2 to 3 percentage points over the next few years.
Increased savings can actually lower economic growth. Economists call it the “paradox of thrift”: What’s good for each of us individually — being thrifty, limiting our spending — can worsen a recession when everyone does it all at once.
Hoffman said about half the 6.2 percent drop in economic output last quarter was attributable to lower consumer spending.
Not what I was referring to...
Anyway, I'm beginning to be sorry I mentioned this. The whole point was that a poster said TWICE that it was easy enough for her to check ISPs to find out who was using multiple monikers in order to find out what was posting as whom, etc. I was just questioning that comment, that's all.
As far as the hacking on the protestwarrior.com website, that is a separate issue from what I was referring to. Someone revealed some folks' personal information on the forum. I wasn't blaming the owners of the website for that.....
Time for me to give this a rest.
LOL! I was referring to
Bush's invasion of Iraq to *spread freedom* (#2 reason after the failed WMD excuse). I'd consider it kind of a *gander invasion* (as in what's good for...). Could you imagine an America where, regardless of wealth, everyone received medical care, nobody starved, everyone had adequate housing? An America that didn't throw its poor to the wolves (or the *waves* of a hurricane, as pointed out below in the areas that Bush included in his Louisiana plan)? An American government that allowed personal freedoms, didn't force one set of religious beliefs down your throat via politics, didn't try to control your personal life/death issues, didn't condemn you to unequal rights and eternal damnation because you love the *wrong* person?
I wouldn't object to living in that kind of America. 
Actually, I was referring to
money/evil as it regards George W. Bush, et al.
The UAE has a very unstable history of *loyalty* to the United States, and I believe allowing this deal to go through is very risky business and completely contrary to the man who said *If you're not with us, you're against us,* who, to me, is now completely against us and in favor of big money. The 9/11 Commission is totally against this deal. But anything to defend Dubya, right?
Let me guess...you *accidentally* posted on the liberal board again, right?
I was actually not referring to you.
You are not the message-syntax-style-similar person.
I was not referring to these 2
individuals exclusively. I said there are those who are able to see a problem from all sides. These are the people who will lead us to peace if we can ever achieve it. As far as liars et al, PULEEZE, take a look at our current Congress, take a look at many of our **ministries.** Take a look at our leaders of industry. Take a look at our professional sports and news people and newspapers.
My point was that one can actually have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours and still love America, love democracy and disapprove of this administration AND say so out loud. I admire people who can put their personal feelings aside and see incendiary events objectively. I am not able to do that but there are those that can. My post was not a defense of anyone in particular.
I was referring to myself...
the things I have gotten mostly on the C board but some here. I did not say you said any of those things. I just know they have been said to me. I am not championing anyone. I wanted to let Teddy know that she has a place here as does everyone (except if you denigrate W) and some pretty nasty things have been said on both sides. I did not want her to leave because she was, it appeared, standing alone yesterday. The more people are here the better it is.
I don't think that anyone probably deserves some of the rhetoric that appears here and I am amazed at the viciousness sometimes...both sides...but we are representative of a larger picture and that is a good thing.
My apologies, I was not referring to you in any way. I was telling Teddy that I knew how she must feel. It's tough to go it alone sometimes or be the only one on your side (or so it seems). I have been there where I am the only left voice and besides being difficult, it gets really confusing about answering what to who about what. That is all.
This is what I was referring to...
I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.). Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job. Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!
Don't know what you are referring to. nm
nm
I am referring to....
The missionary story told in the "Wow. This is impressive. I agree." post, the point being that there are a multitude of Christian viewpoints, especially when it comes to interpreting the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) and reconciling more secular political beliefs.
To whom are you referring?
First, I would like to know exactly to whom you are referring. Second, I would like to know who gave you the power to tell people to go elsewhere? If you are offended by a post or posts, you certainly are free to go elsewhere yourself, but I do not believe you have the right to tell others what to do!
Perhaps she's referring to
A fictional character, John McClane of Die Hard fame. We know she's out of touch with reality.
But why are you referring to....sm
republicans as being rabid tonight? I imagine that term could be used both ways for both parties, but why are you so vehement tonight about only Republicans? Did something happen?
(at least in the posts that I have read...might have missed some, as I don't go back when I've missed a day or so of posts....)
You're usually very level headed, although as you said above on a different post, it sounds like you go right and left on different issues.
And I keep meaning to ask you how your gourd painting is coming along, now that Halloween and fall are upon us. I hope you're having fun with that, as I saw you post on a different board a while back about your hobby....
I was referring to the very same NWO...
...that is the goal of the PNAC that everyone was afraid Bush would cause.
That's what I was referring too....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450445,00.html
The Atheist organizations ran "Why believe in a god" ads in D.C.
I mean if we as Christians can't run ads in secular areas, why should atheists?
By the way, Atheism is becoming a lot like it's own religion nowadays....
That's right - I was referring to him
and should have credited Bubba's name to the quote. Everyone should remember though, Mr. O is not the first black President we've had, according to many Bubba was.
First of all, I was referring to the GOP going . . . .
down the toilet, NOT Fox News. Secondly, the only reason Fox has the highest ratings on non-cable networks is because all the intellligent people are gleaning their information from the more intelligent cable networks. I reckon those people in the boonies can't get those fancy cable stations, and so they are forced to pick between the big 3, and besides, Lamebaugh, Beck, et al, are more to their likin', since birds of a feather (or smaller brains) stick together. So, you all can keep harping on Fox's ratings -- I don't give a rat's behind because I am not impressed (and I am not brainwashed), and I actually have a mind of my own. I think it is disgraceful that they are even allowed to call themselves a news network -- more like hate-inciting network.
If you are referring to me....
I haven't posted anything since January. So I think you may have me confused with someone else. I really just lurk and laugh. Thanks though! 
I think I see now what you're referring to about my post.
I don't find one thing funny about it. I'm outraged about it because blaming anyone BUT the priests is giving a green flag for that behavior to continue.
And I totally agree with you that it's gone on too long, with the church's apparent blessing. They know what these priests are doing, and they just transfer them to another parish so they can continue with a new set of children.
As far as the "headline" comment about my post, see what you mean about it coming up as a "headline" when you log onto this site. I didn't realize it was going to come up that way.
Please rest assured that I'm outraged by all this. Our children in this country are molested and killed every day in what seems to be an epidemic, and nobody is doing anything about it.
OK. But, I wasn't referring to this. That's all I'm trying to say. nm
x
Wasn't referring to you....nm
fdfdf
The 'jokes' I was referring to
were in your previous post. I guess I'm breaking your mold because, while I've never heard AL Franken, I'd break his nose too because what he said in the quote you just provided is hateful. I do not defend one side and slam the other.
Sounds like you are referring to a
certain group of people. Correct me if I have misunderstood. Who are you talking about? The vast majority of conservatives who believe the Bible is divinely inspired support the Constitution and don't want it meddled with. Your observation truly has me confused. 
I know...I was referring to my typo (nm)
xx
I still have no idea to whom you are referring!
Why don't you give specific examples, so I can understand what you are talking about? I am not psychic and truly don't know who you are targeting here. Everyone on the board has the ability to post under whatever name they choose. For example, Sam admitted to posting under the name Indy Observer yesterday. No one knew it was her until she revealed it in one of her posts. Do you have special powers that allow you to know who is posting under various names?
I was referring to the war in Iraq being
a waste. The man who was behind our 09/11 massacre is still at large. We should have put more time, resources in money going after him. Not going after Iraq, but then they had all that great oil. Again, Afghanistan is one thing, Iraq another. Bush and his admin. mislead and lied to everybody saying that Iraq had anything to do with 09/11. So, now we have pumped billions of dollars into an Iraq war when it should have put into getting the man/people would attacked us. So yes, the fact that it is Afghanistan does make the difference IMO.
I shudder to think of all the things the Republicans have done in the 6 years that they had majority that we don't even know about yet. It does not excuse this current fiasco though and as I stated earlier, no I do not overlook what hand the Dems had it in either.
Who are you referring to by "they" ?
I am also a Christian and don't condone any of it either and I think most people probably do not. "they" fear Muslims because all they know of Muslims is the small portion of them who are terrorists. They don't realize it is a peaceful religion. All of these things that were done in the name of religion over centuries were done by radicals one way or the other looking for an excuse. No one's God, not the God we Christians believe in, not the God Muslims believe in, condones killing and hatred. That is something we humans have done all by ourselves.
Which lies are you referring to
Would you please be specific. I understand you are not defending either candidate, but you came on and pretty much said that whatever we wrote were lies, so I would like to know which "lies" are you referring to. I'm sure you're probably referring to the people who wrote about their concerns and posted articles that were against Obama.
I came on this board to read people's "opinions", why someone liked or disliked a candidate and for what reason. Also a lot of excellent links and articles were posted. Some written by lawyers, journalists, etc. People with degrees and who have been studying the economy, foreign affairs, laws, and presidential races for 20 years or more. Are those people lying? They've done their research, and for many of us we posted links to those sources for people to read themselves and make their own determinations as to whether they belive it or not.
What I saw constantly was if it went against Obama people said it was a lie. We posted articles and were told the source is not credible. Then when we posted some from CNN or MSNBC nothing was said. So people gave no reason as to why they were not credible except for the simple fact that it did not praise Obama. They chose to ignore the truth instead.
So as for people "making things up". It all depended on if you were for or against Obama. I never heard one Obama supporter question any of the stuff Obama was saying or doing or his shady background and questionable associations. But the McCain supporters did question him. We did say time and time again we weren't really happy with the republicans choice, but the other was worse.
P.S. - The stuff we post... we do back up with a credible source.
So please tell me which lies you are referring to so we can answer you with credible sources.
This is referring to an off shore rig..... sm
when it talks about taking 20 years to bring one to production. People need to understand that this is from the seismographic investigations until the first drop of crude comes from below the ocean floor.
I am talking about land rigs, and I believe I stated this in my post. I live in an oil and gas rich region of our country and have a very good friend who is a consultant for one of the major drilling companies in the region. When I asked him how long it takes to bring a rig to production, his answer was that it used to take upwards of 6 weeks to 2 months but that they now have the technology to bring one in within 14 days from rig up to rig down. The higher ups in the business push for a figure closer to 10 days. I have watched the oil drilling activity in my area, and I mean physically watched it and not just reading about it in the newspaper, for the last 3 years and have literally counted the days from rig up to rig down several times and it generally does come in at around 10 to 14 days.
I also looked at the front page for your source. Did you? It has Obama written all over it, so any "facts" that are posted there are going to be slanted in his favor to advance his legislation and party. Even the first sentence is an outdated statement. Gas prices have plummetted in the past couple of weeks. It is currently down to below $2 in several towns in my area. My mother's royalty check this month was only 25% of what it had been in previous months.
So, I believe I know my facts pretty well and I don't need Obama's website decrying what Bush did or did not do to substantiate them.
Noooooooooo! I was referring to
when Bush declares martial law.
I wasn't talking about Obama.
If anyone is the antichrist, it's Bush, in my opinion. 
which post are you referring to
specifically? Which one of my posts were lies?
|
