On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:24:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:14:11 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Speaking of the subject header ....

Happened to note that although President Obama stated several times that
passage of the stimulus would enable Caterpillar to re-hire some of it's
laid-off employees and repeating it again while visiting the Caterpillar
plant while gesturing towards Owens, Caterpillar's president, Owens seemed
to contradict Obama's statement shortly afterward.

After Obama departed from the plant visit, Owens was asked if passage now
meant he would re-hire some laid off employees. His answer was, "In all
honesty, no." He indicated that there was a long ways to go and that in
reality there will likely be more lay-offs before any re-hiring can begin.

Failure to communicate? Something screwy here.

Maybe just pure BS.
I noted that BO said something like "this stimulus will allow Cat to
hire back some of the laid off workers."
What does "some" mean?
One? Two? Hundreds?
Any time a pol uses non-specific language, he is blowing hot air.

--Vic



You think he should be able to predict precisely how many employees at a
company would be hired back?

No, he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
Because he didn't know.
Even using the word "possibility" or "hopefully"would have worked.
Look where he is now, being called a liar.

Absurd.

What's absurd?

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:24:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:14:11 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Speaking of the subject header ....

Happened to note that although President Obama stated several times that
passage of the stimulus would enable Caterpillar to re-hire some of it's
laid-off employees and repeating it again while visiting the Caterpillar
plant while gesturing towards Owens, Caterpillar's president, Owens seemed
to contradict Obama's statement shortly afterward.

After Obama departed from the plant visit, Owens was asked if passage now
meant he would re-hire some laid off employees. His answer was, "In all
honesty, no." He indicated that there was a long ways to go and that in
reality there will likely be more lay-offs before any re-hiring can begin.

Failure to communicate? Something screwy here.

Maybe just pure BS.
I noted that BO said something like "this stimulus will allow Cat to
hire back some of the laid off workers."
What does "some" mean?
One? Two? Hundreds?
Any time a pol uses non-specific language, he is blowing hot air.

--Vic


You think he should be able to predict precisely how many employees at a
company would be hired back?

No, he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
Because he didn't know.
Even using the word "possibility" or "hopefully"would have worked.
Look where he is now, being called a liar.


Only by the right-wing trashmeisters. No one cares about them.

wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:50:22 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:

"As if?" The policies of the left are turning the state into a third
world country. I expect Krause to make his typical asinine comment about
racism. If the rule of law means anything then it needs to be enforced.

Boy is it ever funny to hear neo-cons nitwits like you who are
suddenly concerned about "The Rule of Law".



Yeah...amazing, ain't it? Suddenly, certain of the right-wing posters
here are *concerned* with laws. What a laugh that is.

On Feb 13, 7:14*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Speaking of the subject header ....

Happened to note that although President Obama stated several times that
passage of the stimulus would enable Caterpillar to re-hire some of it's
laid-off employees and repeating it again while visiting the Caterpillar
plant while gesturing towards Owens, Caterpillar's president, *Owens seemed
to contradict Obama's statement shortly afterward.

After Obama departed from the plant visit, Owens was asked if passage now
meant he would re-hire some laid off employees. * His answer was, "In all
honesty, no." * He indicated that there was a long ways to go and that in
reality there will likely be more lay-offs before any re-hiring can begin..

Failure to communicate? *Something screwy here.

Eisboch

It was an attempt to create a talking point to support the pork bill.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:55:00 -0500, HK wrote:


No, he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
Because he didn't know.
Even using the word "possibility" or "hopefully"would have worked.
Look where he is now, being called a liar.


Only by the right-wing trashmeisters. No one cares about them.

Well, I'm not one of them, and my BS meter needle jerked when he said
that. It was unnecessary.
Nobody likes being fed a line of BS.
It wasn't prudent.

--Vic

On Feb 13, 11:42*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:55:00 -0500, HK wrote:

No, he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
Because he didn't know.
Even using the word "possibility" or "hopefully"would have worked.
Look where he is now, being called a liar.

Only by the right-wing trashmeisters. No one cares about them.

Well, I'm not one of them, and my BS meter needle jerked when he said
that. *It was unnecessary.
Nobody likes being fed a line of BS.
It wasn't prudent.

--Vic

Seems to be a fault of the "far left".. No moral core, no honor or
concern for truthfulness, only power. Funny how it's only the four
furthest lefties here that are known for their constant lies too...

wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:42 am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:55:00 -0500, HK wrote:

No, he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
Because he didn't know.
Even using the word "possibility" or "hopefully"would have worked.
Look where he is now, being called a liar.
Only by the right-wing trashmeisters. No one cares about them.
Well, I'm not one of them, and my BS meter needle jerked when he said
that. It was unnecessary.
Nobody likes being fed a line of BS.
It wasn't prudent.

--Vic

Seems to be a fault of the "far left".. No moral core, no honor or
concern for truthfulness, only power.

You are so delusional you constantly project your shortcomings here.
*You* have no moral core, no honor, no concern for truthfulness. You
bite on something about someone else, and then you turn it into
something else, and you are so ****ed in the head, you actually
*believe* what you have posted.

You really are a low-life. Everything about you screams it.

On Feb 13, 11:52*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:42 am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:55:00 -0500, HK wrote:

No, he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
Because he didn't know.
Even using the word "possibility" or "hopefully"would have worked.
Look where he is now, being called a liar.
Only by the right-wing trashmeisters. No one cares about them.
Well, I'm not one of them, and my BS meter needle jerked when he said
that. *It was unnecessary.
Nobody likes being fed a line of BS.
It wasn't prudent.

--Vic

Seems to be a fault of the "far left".. No moral core, no honor or
concern for truthfulness, only power.

You are so delusional you constantly project your shortcomings here.
*You* have no moral core, no honor, no concern for truthfulness. You
bite on something about someone else, and then you turn it into
something else, and you are so ****ed in the head, you actually
*believe* what you have posted.

You really are a low-life. Everything about you screams it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's funny... you describe yourself to a tee.
Let's try again:

Ok, what's delusional? Obama said "no Lobbyists in his cabinet", he
lied, he said most ethical cabinet ever, he lied, he said 48 hours to
look over bills, he lied, he said he would work across the isle, he
lied, he said most open administration ever, he lied, he said no
earmarks or pork in stimulous, he really lied... Please cite which
one
of these is not true???

I have given you several opportunities here, prove where I have ever
lied here...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:14:11 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Speaking of the subject header ....

Happened to note that although President Obama stated several times that
passage of the stimulus would enable Caterpillar to re-hire some of it's
laid-off employees and repeating it again while visiting the Caterpillar
plant while gesturing towards Owens, Caterpillar's president, Owens
seemed
to contradict Obama's statement shortly afterward.

After Obama departed from the plant visit, Owens was asked if passage now
meant he would re-hire some laid off employees. His answer was, "In all
honesty, no." He indicated that there was a long ways to go and that in
reality there will likely be more lay-offs before any re-hiring can begin.

Failure to communicate? Something screwy here.

Maybe just pure BS.
I noted that BO said something like "this stimulus will allow Cat to
hire back some of the laid off workers."
What does "some" mean?
One? Two? Hundreds?
Any time a pol uses non-specific language, he is blowing hot air.

--Vic


I am not sure who screwed up what. It may not be Obama.
Here's a link to a short video (takes a second to load) of what Obama said
during his visit to the CAT plant and then what the CAT president said
immediately after.

You decide.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/02/12/president-obama-lied-about-caterpillar-rehiring-employees-if-the-stimulus-passed/

"HK" wrote in message
...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:14:11 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Speaking of the subject header ....

Happened to note that although President Obama stated several times that
passage of the stimulus would enable Caterpillar to re-hire some of it's
laid-off employees and repeating it again while visiting the Caterpillar
plant while gesturing towards Owens, Caterpillar's president, Owens
seemed to contradict Obama's statement shortly afterward.

After Obama departed from the plant visit, Owens was asked if passage
now meant he would re-hire some laid off employees. His answer was,
"In all honesty, no." He indicated that there was a long ways to go
and that in reality there will likely be more lay-offs before any
re-hiring can begin.

Failure to communicate? Something screwy here.

Maybe just pure BS.
I noted that BO said something like "this stimulus will allow Cat to
hire back some of the laid off workers."
What does "some" mean?
One? Two? Hundreds?
Any time a pol uses non-specific language, he is blowing hot air.

--Vic


You think he should be able to predict precisely how many employees at a
company would be hired back?

Absurd.

Obama didn't say how many. That was accurate. The fact that he said the
CAT president told him he would hire some workers back is what is
controversial. The CAT president actually said, "In all honesty, no",
immediately after Obama's speech and then indicated that even more lay-offs
will probably occur.

Eisboch