"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"

This is what politics has devolved to in 2012.

Yay.

But we're also going to cite those same fact checkers in our attack ads

This "make up any old shit" goes back nearly 10 years.

It's probably why batshit crazy Bible-thumpers, creationists, AGW deniers, who make up shit as they go along, vote the Repugs.

"We're An Empire Now...We Create Our Own Reality"

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ...

"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Enough with the spamming; you're like a 9-11 truther.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Enough with the spamming; you're like a 9-11 truther.

---

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/rom...welfare-attack

Quote:

---

Mitt Romney's aides explained with unusual political bluntness today why they are spending heavily — and ignoring media criticism — to air an add accusing President Barack Obama of "gutting" the work requirement for welfare, a marginal political issue since the mid-1990s that Romney pushed back to center stage.

"Our most effective ad is our welfare ad," a top television advertising strategist for Romney, Ashley O'Connor, said at a forum Tuesday hosted by ABCNews and Yahoo! News. "It's new information."

The welfare ad has been the center of intense dispute, with Democrats accusing Romney of unearthing old racial ghosts and Romney pointing out that the Obama Administration has offered states waivers that could, in fact, lighten work requirements in welfare, a central issue in Bill Clinton's 1996 revamping of public assistance.

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" awarded Romney's ad "four Pinocchios," a measure Romney pollster Neil Newhouse dismissed.

"Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," he said. The fact-checkers — whose institutional rise has been a feature of the cycle — have "jumped the shark," he added after the panel.

---

wow....

"we are going to lie through our teeth, facts be damned, because winning at all costs is what we are all about".

there is a reason this year has left me pissed off and cynical about the right wing in this country... and that pretty much is it in a nutshell.

Boutons and Yoni do it all the time...

President Obama Quotes Romney Pollster Dismissing Fact-checkers

Quote:

---

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA - President Obama today seized upon a remark by a pollster for his rival's campaign to paint Mitt Romney as determined to "not let the truth get in the way" of his campaign.

Speaking to a crowd of roughly seven thousand supporters, many of them students at the nearby University of Virginia, the president said, " you can prove the cynics wrong one more time. But the other side will spend the next two months spending more money than we have ever seen in our lives - an avalanche of attack ads and insults, distractions - and sometimes they just make things up. But they've got a bunch of folks who can write $10 million checks. And they'll just keep on running them. "

The president continued: "somebody was challenging one of their ads, they just - they made it up about work and welfare…Every outlet said, 'this is just not true.' And they were asked about it and they said - one of their campaign people says: We won't have the fact checkers dictate our campaign. We will not let the truth get in the way."

---

About time he has come out swinging.

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obam...-politics.html

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, Romney expressed shock that a pro-Obama super-PAC with ties to the White House would continue running an ad in which a steelworker tied Romney to his wife's death. (The ad has run twice.)

"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney told Bill Bennett on his radio show. "They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them."

---

What a fucking hypocritical sack of shit.

What, you're expecting someone whose cronies openly rig a nomination process to give two shits about honesty or integrity? Please, those are small-time ideals that only You People are held to in Willard's world.....

Threre is virtually no accountability for politicians and the things they say in modern America.

political campaigns are about getting independent voters to support your guy or, failing that, turning them off on the other guy. whatever works, works.

That's the problem, like the financial sector and BigPharma, politicians, esp Repugs and tea baggers, can say and do ANYTHING and the media doesn't challenge them, or even point it out.

In the face of some horrible Repug LIE, the "we must be balanced" media simply says, in false equivalence, "on the other hand", the Dems ...

And they almost never pay any penalty, or any penalty is so small compared to the reward or profits, that the penalty is useless as dissuasion, is rolled into the cost of doing business.

I read an article that said the history goes back to Repugs ESPECIALLY being emboldened when Johnson didn't go public with the Repugs screwing the VN Paris peace talks. He let them get away with it.

This screwing of international diplomacy by the Repugs was repeated when they told the Khomeini revolution they would get a better deal after Carter was out and St Ronnie the Diseased was in. So the Iranians held embassy captives months longer. The Repugs didn't care, no more than than they cared about prolonging the slaughter of the VN war for their own political gain.

Because federal govt has been compromised and corrupted by the corporations and the 1%, govt has become completely ineffective as the only possible countervailing power.

America is SO FUCKED and UNFUCKABLE.

If Repug voter suppression (and election stealing like OH 04) succeeds and C-U/Rove/1% buys the WH for Gecko, some of you naive assholes will finally get the totally black picture.

And there's NOTHING Human-Americans can do to "take our country back" from the kleptocratic plutocracy that owns and operates USA for its own power and wealth. Vote for better candidates? the system doesn't produce better candidates.

Quote:

---

If Repug voter suppression (and election stealing like OH 04) succeeds and C-U/Rove/1% buys the WH for Gecko, some of you naive assholes will finally get the totally black picture.

---

you're the naive asshole. if Repug voter suppression, black money and disinformation fail to unseat the corporatist, war mongering 1%er currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the picture will be about equally bleak.

Fact checking gets in the way of pageantry, thus there's no place for it in 21st century American politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

you're the naive asshole. if Repug voter suppression, black money and disinformation fail to unseat the corporatist, war mongering 1%er currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the picture will be about equally bleak.

---

naive amnesiac, forgetting 2001-2008 of Repug misrule. If gecko/ryan get in with Congress, too, you ain't see nothing, yet.

I forgot nothing. I bitched and screamed the whole way. I don't see Obama as being any improvement on the Bush years. Continuity, not change,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

If gecko/ryan get in with Congress, too, you ain't see nothing, yet.

---

No worries. Republicans won't have 60 seats in the senate and according to you that kills any and all chance for a president to do anything. At least that's the excuse you make for Obama & Co.

@boutons: if you think things changed just because Repugs got thumped in 2006 and 2008, you're awfully naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

you're the naive asshole. if Repug voter suppression, black money and disinformation fail to unseat the corporatist, war mongering 1%er currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the picture will be about equally bleak.

---

The problem isn't the jerk in the oval office.

The problem, as the Bush administration ooh so aptly demonstrated, is the kinds of people that person will populate the goverment with.

Sorry, the extreme right wing in this country will scream for, and get, a lot of the reins of power in a Romney administration.

If you don't see that happening, you need to keep reading, mr. floater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Threre is virtually no accountability for politicians and the things they say in modern America.

---

Yeah. Back in the day, you'll get challenged to a duel or beaten with a cane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The problem isn't the jerk in the oval office.

The problem, as the Bush administration ooh so aptly demonstrated, is the kinds of people that person will populate the goverment with.

---

What kind of people did Obama populate his administration with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The problem isn't the jerk in the oval office.

The problem, as the Bush administration ooh so aptly demonstrated, is the kinds of people that person will populate the goverment with.

Sorry, the extreme right wing in this country will scream for, and get, a lot of the reins of power in a Romney administration.

If you don't see that happening, you need to keep reading, mr. floater.

---

The Exec's appointments are defined by the President and his APPOINTED staff. The jerk in the WH IS the problem. dubya's WH was rotten with grads from ideological, doctrinaire, Bible-thumping "Christian" scams like Liberty University.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The Exec's appointments are defined by the President and his APPOINTED staff. The jerk in the WH IS the problem. dubya's WH was rotten with grads from ideological, doctrinaire, Bible-thumping "Christian" scams like Liberty University.

---

What kind of people did Obama populate his administration with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The problem isn't the jerk in the oval office.

The problem, as the Bush administration ooh so aptly demonstrated, is the kinds of people that person will populate the goverment with.

Sorry, the extreme right wing in this country will scream for, and get, a lot of the reins of power in a Romney administration.

---

elections have consequences, sure. but so does overreach. if the extreme right wing gets too extreme, once in power, voters will punish them for it. like in 2006 and 2008.

and like 2008, whoever succeeds them will campaign on changing it and end up normalizing most of it. maybe even pioneer a few new abuses. Obama sure has.

it's my fond hope that the Republican populism based on hate and the Democratic one based on fear will both eventually be replaced by something else. I'm not holding my breath, but if there's one constant in politics, it's change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

No worries. Republicans won't have 60 seats in the senate and according to you that kills any and all chance for a president to do anything. At least that's the excuse you make for Obama & Co.

---

^ which is exactly why we don't need a change in Presidency at the moment. I'd rather continue with the devil I know vs. the devil (Romney) I don't know. If Obama and Axelrod are really smart they''d hammer this point home.

Since Obama's taken office there's been steady job growth in every month of his presidency... (just compare how the economy was shrinking and job losses just prior to Obama being sworn in). Sure the numbers aren't where we want them to be but it's steady progress...Obama's stimulus prevented an all-out depression so YES we ARE better off than we were 3 yrs ago in every way imaginable.

Obama's team need to hammer this point home to the independents that changing tickets during an economic recovery period would be disastrous for America... this is clearly where team Obama need to focus and concentrate their message to the independents. Independents seem to be level headed and reasonable and I see this basic common sense resonating with their intelligence.

Obama has already struggled against an Obstructionist, treasonous, and semi-violent tea-party mob style republican party...Mitt Romney will only roll back progress pushing us further to a great depression.

Leave well enough alone....I'm actually communicating with members of the democratic and progressive base to ensure we push this message in some form or fashion a theme at the DNC. :toast

Obama/Biden Forever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

@boutons: if you think things changed just because Repugs got thumped in 2006 and 2008, you're awfully naive.

---

nope, not much changed.

iow, America is fucked and unfuckable.

There simply can't be any change from the 1% and corps owning and operating the country. They'll never give up power, and won't even be challenged.

the poverty rate will continue to increase, the good jobs are gone, the 1% will be incredibly richer while the 99% stagnates, at best, while most will decrease in income and wealth. inequality will continue to increase.

:lol @ Obama running on his economic record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What kind of people did Obama populate his administration with?

---

Fuck you, asshole. Don't ask me questions, because I am tired of talking to people like you. You are too dumb to waste effort talking to.

You have long ago forfeited and used up your "randomguy time", since you have repeatedly proven you do not care what the truth is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The problem isn't the jerk in the oval office.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RG

The problem, as the Bush administration ooh so aptly demonstrated, is the kinds of people that person will populate the goverment with.

---

Ok, so it is the jerk in the oval office. Pick a lane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RG

Sorry, the extreme right wing in this country will scream for, and get, a lot of the reins of power in a Romney administration.

If you don't see that happening, you need to keep reading, mr. floater.

---

Please provide a list of extreme right wing posts. Be specific.
/ChumpDumper:lol

From Kathleen Sebelius's directive (not an Obama Executive Order) on July 12, 2012:

Quote:

---

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

---

That's the torturous explanation of the law by which the Obama administration claims the authority to waive the work requirement.

If they didn't intend for the waivers to include waiving the work requirement why did Sebelius find it necessary to explain how her interpretation of how the authority to waive the reporting requirements in Section 402 includes the authority to waive the work requirements in Section 407 and allow States to define alternatives to that section other than the work requirements in Section 407.

If you waive the reporting requirements in 402 and specifically allow States to experiment with alternatives to the provisions of Section 407, who's going to keep up with what alternatives the States are employing. In effect you've ripped the work requirement from the Welfare Law and that's to what conservatives and the Romney campaign are referring when they say Obama is gutting the work requirement from Welfare Reform.

And, before you argue about Sebelius's later, clarifying memorandum, saying that's not what her directive does, keep in mind these are the people who were schizophrenic over whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty. Honesty and integrity in their application of the laws isn't exactly a hallmark of this administration.

And, not allowing yourself to be led around by "fact checkers" is pretty smart when the "fact checkers" can't identify the facts.

Quote:

---

There simply can't be any change from the 1% and corps owning and operating the country. They'll never give up power, and won't even be challenged.

---

then why do you give a rat's ass who wins in November?

fucked/unfuckable, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

then why do you give a rat's ass who wins in November?

fucked/unfuckable, right?

---

call back to the lazy Nihilist?:lol

the tension between that and being a kneejerk partisan is striking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Fuck you, asshole. Don't ask me questions, because I am tired of talking to people like you. You are too dumb to waste effort talking to.

You have long ago forfeited and used up your "randomguy time", since you have repeatedly proven you do not care what the truth is.

---

It's a fair question. What kind of people did Obama populate his administration with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's a fair question. What kind of people did Obama populate his administration with?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RG

The problem isn't the jerk in the oval office.

---

Except for when it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, not allowing yourself to be led around by "fact checkers" is pretty smart when the "fact checkers" can't identify the facts.

---

It's pretty transparent too. When you talk out of your ass, you can simply say, "hey, I said I wasn't going to restrict my campaign to facts"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's pretty transparent too. When you talk out of your ass, you can simply say, "hey, I said I wasn't going to restrict my campaign to facts"...

---

It's the fact checkers that aren't restricting themselves to facts.

both are true. fact checkers and the politicians they check are both pretty facile wrt to the facts. just because two parties, or three parties or a thousand parties, are in dispute about the facts, doesn't mean one of them has to be right.

that said, telling fact checkers to go to hell discloses a bit of a political tin ear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

It's the fact checkers that aren't restricting themselves to facts.

---

If there are disagreements with different fact checkers out there, they can point them out. Setting the bar to unapologetic outright bullshit is a different matter altogether.

in this crazy postmodern world all value is relative. there is no truth. any dispute about what it is merely conceals a crude struggle for power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

It's the fact checkers that aren't restricting themselves to facts.

---

Yep, that is clearly the real problem here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

in this crazy postmodern world all value is relative. there is no truth. any dispute about what it is merely conceals a crude struggle for power.

---

:lol pretty much

It's not a turd! It's a soil-enriching substance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

then why do you give a rat's ass who wins in November?

fucked/unfuckable, right?

---

because we are today mainly suffering from conservative/Repug/VRWC policies and esp Repug fuckups in 2001-2008.

Those fuckups (like financial deregulation, financial bubble aftermath, union busting, war on employees) are VERY HARD to turn around, next to impossible, in the best of times, but when the opposing party is bloody-minded obstructionist.

iow, Obama or anybody would have a hard time undoing the Repug fuckups.

But as we can see in the gecko/ryan budget and social plans, they don't intend to fix any Repug fuckups, but make them much worse which includes repealing ACA, undoing financial deregulation, cutting taxes on the 1% and coprs, kiling EPA/OSHA, killing NOAA storm watch funding, killing medicare/SS/medicaid, etc, etc, ACA being about the only positive that Obama/Dems achieved, and that was fucking miraculous.

fucked/unfuckable, right? right, you're finally catching on, congrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Ok.


Ok, so it is the jerk in the oval office. Pick a lane.



Please provide a list of extreme right wing posts. Be specific.
/ChumpDumper:lol

---

Presidents tend to govern from the middle and are restricted by Congress. As such, Obama or Romney themselves aren't going to matter.

In that regard, the problem isn't one or the other.

What does matter is who is going to start inhabiting the appointed and hired positions that the president and his staff *do* place.

I would call Ryan fairly firmly in the extreme right wing of his party, but by "posts" what exactly are you talking about?

In case you haven't noticed, Romney isnt the president yet, but has the tea party slobbering all over the chance to get their brand of nutballs into goverment.

Do you need any more explanation, or do you understand this yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Yep, that is clearly the real problem here.

---

Well, does or does not Sebelius explain, in her directive, how a waiver of Section 402 allows States to explore alternative to Section 407 work requirements?

Note, her explanation doesn't say "in addition to" or "including," it says, "other than."

A fair reading of that paragraph can be construed to mean they're willing to allow States to forego the work requirements of Section 407.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Presidents tend to govern from the middle and are restricted by Congress. As such, Obama or Romney themselves aren't going to matter.

---

Obama wasn't restricted by Congress in 2009 or 2010, he got everything he asked for. And, what he can't get Congress to pass in 2011 or 2012, he's simply directed by Executive Order or some other manipulation of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

It's the fact checkers that aren't restricting themselves to facts.

---

Translation:

"Only facts that I agree with, actually count as facts, so when someone points out things I don't agree with, they obviously are not, by definition, facts. ipso facto."



Anything or anybody that isn't rabidly right-wing or that might show that any cherished right wing idea is wrong, is obviously a plot.

Duck, dodge, obfuscate.

WTG, you have now become the conservative Cosmored.

Got any links you want to spam while you are at it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Obama wasn't restricted by Congress in 2009 or 2010, he got everything he asked for. And, what he can't get Congress to pass in 2011 or 2012, he's simply directed by Executive Order or some other manipulation of the law.

---

What world do you live in? :lol

"Obama wasn't restricted by Congress in 2009 or 2010, he got everything he asked for"

Penalty for Yoni lying: he's fucking fool and shill for ideological extremists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I am only going to respond to the things I think I can score points on, and ignore any valid points anybody might make about anything.

---

Meh. I can see why you might get frustrated with political forums from time to time.

It must take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from thinking your side is infallible.

The only time I have ever seen you admit Republicans or right wingers fuck up, is when something so obviously fucktarded like Aiken comes down the pike, and you see some poltical advantage from throwing them under the bus.

It would take a helluva lot more courage to admit fault when there isn't any political advantage to be had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative Cosmored

It's the fact checkers that aren't restricting themselves to facts.

---

Yes, yes, Democrats didn't land on the moon, we know.

All those stinkin' liberal facts are just obfuscating from the real questions. :rolleyes

you have to see your own fault, to have the courage to face it. I tend to doubt Yoni's that far long yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Note, her explanation doesn't say "in addition to" or "including," it says, "other than."

---

:lol

Is that the only 'issue' in play this election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

What world do you live in? :lol

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

:lol

Is that the only 'issue' in play this election?

---

No, this is the issue raised by RandomGuy in this post, very early in this thread, and I was pointing out that fact checkers didn't know the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

What world do you live in? :lol

---

The one where Obama had a Democrat-controlled Congress from April 2009 to January 2011, when he got an unpopular health care law and an 800 billion dollar stimulus through. And, the one where, since, he's issued executive orders or allowed his administration to fiddle with the rules in order to bypass sections of the law he doesn't like.

That world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Meh. I can see why you might get frustrated with political forums from time to time.

It must take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from thinking your side is infallible.

The only time I have ever seen you admit Republicans or right wingers fuck up, is when something so obviously fucktarded like Aiken comes down the pike, and you see some poltical advantage from throwing them under the bus.

It would take a helluva lot more courage to admit fault when there isn't any political advantage to be had.

---

When have I ever suggested "my side" is infallible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

you have to see your own fault, to have the courage to face it. I tend to doubt Yoni's that far long yet.

---

My fault is that I have gotten royally pissed off, as I am sure has been noticed.

The right wing propaganda machine has just about won the battle, and it is frustrating as all get out to see so many independents sucking up the suble lies and manipulations as truth.

Democrats to be sure have some bullshit moments, but at this point how people can think that both parties are somehow equally fucked up boggles my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The one where Obama had a Democrat-controlled Congress from April 2009 to January 2011, when he got an unpopular health care law and an 800 billion dollar stimulus through. And, the one where, since, he's issued executive orders or allowed his administration to fiddle with the rules in order to bypass sections of the law he doesn't like.

That world.

---

The one with Lieberman as the 60th voter, right? Is that the one you're talking about?

And considering that the Republicans passed the first stimulus, I'm not quite sure how Obama rammed that down Congress throats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

When have I ever suggested "my side" is infallible?

---

That is certainly an interesting question you have asked me.

Now let me talk about how much I think that spaghetti is so much better than ravioli.

Becauase that is what I really want to talk about here, your question might force me to admit fault, or appear to be wrong about something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My fault is that I have gotten royally pissed off, as I am sure has been noticed.

The right wing propaganda machine has just about won the battle, and it is frustrating as all get out to see so many independents sucking up the suble lies and manipulations as truth.

Democrats to be sure have some bullshit moments, but at this point how people can think that both parties are somehow equally fucked up boggles my mind.

---

What subtle lies and manipulations?

As I just pointed out, that Obama is gutting the work requirements from Welfare Reform isn't a lie.

Are you going to suggest he isn't taking $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare?

Are you also going to suggest he has failed to turn the economy around after making promises to do just that? And, if you're going to further suggest that, well, he just didn't know how bad it was -- are you going to suggest he didn't have ability to go before the American people and say, I can't fix this in four years -- it's just too fucked up, instead of what he did do, which is to keep telling Americans to hand on; 2011 was going to be the recovery summer. Nope. Then they tried to sell this summer as the recovery summer. They tell us GM is a government success even though they've once again suspended production of the Obamamobile and GM is on the ropes again.

What lies are being told about this fucked up administration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The one with Lieberman as the 60th voter, right? Is that the one you're talking about?

And considering that the Republicans passed the first stimulus, I'm not quite sure how Obama rammed that down Congress throats.

---

Did I say he rammed it? I said he got everything he asked for, including Obamacare. What did Republicans stop him from getting, that would have improved the economy, those first two years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

No, this is the issue raised by RandomGuy in this post, very early in this thread, and I was pointing out that fact checkers didn't know the facts.

---

:lol the only thing you pointed out is that the interpretation of the law is debatable, not that the ad claim is factual or not.

A blanket statement like "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers" speaks about the whole campaign, not specific claims. As I said, it sets the bar to unapologetic outright bullshitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That is certainly an interesting question you have asked me.

Now let me talk about how much I think that spaghetti is so much better than ravioli.

Becauase that is what I really want to talk about here, your question might force me to admit fault, or appear to be wrong about something.

---

Your point wasn't even germane to the conversation.

What does my pointing out Obama's faults have to do with your notion that I refuse to admit the infallibility of "my side?"

What does my pointing out the "fact checkers" were wrong about Obama gutting the work requirement from Welfare have to do with your notion that I refuse to admit the infallibility of "my side?"

Nothing, that's what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

When have I ever suggested "my side" is infallible?

---

Seriously though, to actually address your question directly:

You suggest it by dint of the never ending torrent of "look at the bad Democrats" threads that you post any time you are active. While an exact "infallible" is never expressly stated, the overall intent is fairly clear.


The suggestion is an indirect, but clearly palpable one, propaganda man.


Let's see if you can answer a direct critical thinking question:

If someone presents 100 news articles, all about how bad Democrats are, is it a reasonable assumption that the underlying message is:

"Democrats are bad, so Republicans, their political opposites, are much better".

Once again, a simple yes or no is all I really ask for, not that I expect one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

the "fact checkers" were wrong about Obama gutting the work requirement from Welfare.

---

:lmao

You seriously believe your own bullshit. In-fucking-credible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Democrats to be sure have some bullshit moments, but at this point how people can think that both parties are somehow equally fucked up boggles my mind.

---

I'm turned off by the whole ball of wax. The last guy campaigned against the outrages of the other party then institutionalized about all of em. Has even copied their style of campaign advertising this time around.

Fuck the Dems and the GOP and the vaporware they rode in on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My fault is that I have gotten royally pissed off, as I am sure has been noticed.

The right wing propaganda machine has just about won the battle, and it is frustrating as all get out to see so many independents sucking up the suble lies and manipulations as truth.

Democrats to be sure have some bullshit moments, but at this point how people can think that both parties are somehow equally fucked up boggles my mind.

---

Seriously, RG; you're a smart guy.

Republicans suck. Democrats Suck. Everything else is details. Back away from the debate; stop trying to get either of these parties elected. "The lesser of two evils" is still fucking evil!

Intelligent people can agree to disagree - and they can compromise; from the first Constitutional Convention that has been a great strength of our nation - but these parties, what they have become; the people pulling the strings HAVE ALREADY FULLY COMPROMISED!! They agree on the important stuff; the stuff that enriches and empowers them and their friends - they maintain that power by keeping us distracted and arguing amongst ourselves about bullshit. It's why nothing ever really changes (From Compassionate Conservative to Hope and Change; wtf is different????)

Seriously, we STILL have the power to kick all the sumbitches out; to start over with a fresh slate of reasonable people. If we're too busy calling each other names; we'll never get to any type of a solution. They great tragedy of the past four years is we had TWO grass roots movements rise to shake up the Apple Cart; if they ever could have realized how much common ground there was between them, something could have be happening RIGHT NOW....unfortunately both movements were successfully co-opted by one of the big parties; and now they're just talking points on mailings soliciting donations.

Fuck them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

:lol the only thing you pointed out is that the interpretation of the law is debatable, not that the ad claim is factual or not.

A blanket statement like "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers" speaks about the whole campaign, not specific claims. As I said, it sets the bar to unapologetic outright bullshitting.

---

What's the context of that statement?

From an Atlantic article:

Quote:

---

As Ben Smith of BuzzFeed has pointed out, the Romney campaign is simply swatting aside the media's objections to its welfare ad: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.

---

In other words, the fact checkers are wrong and we stand by our ad. He could have added, "...we're going to let our campaign be dictated by facts."

And, as I just demonstrated, it's entirely possible the Obama administration and Kathleen Sebelius intend to do just that. Otherwise, and you have yet to address this, why would Sebelius specifically point out, in her directive, that a waiver of Section 402 allows them to authorize States to explore alternatives to the work requirement in Section 407?

I'd stand by the ad, as well.

One more thing, since when does the media "object" to campaign ads? Why don't they just report?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You seriously believe your own bullshit. In-fucking-credible.

---

I don't see anything not factual about characterizing Sebelius's language as an intent to waive the work requirements from Welfare.

^^Your heros continue to not let facts get in the way. :lol

FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rya...070905927.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

One more thing, since when does the media "object" to campaign ads? Why don't they just report?

---

No context. No analysis. Just mindless aping of the preferred narrative.

That is the only way the right wants its propaganda disseminated.

Critical thinking about your ideas is not allowed, and is obviously indicative of some hidden agenda.

I think your bitching about someone having the nuts to call your bullshit for what it is, says volumes about your values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Presidents tend to govern from the middle and are restricted by Congress. As such, Obama or Romney themselves aren't going to matter.

In that regard, the problem isn't one or the other.

What does matter is who is going to start inhabiting the appointed and hired positions that the president and his staff *do* place.

I would call Ryan fairly firmly in the extreme right wing of his party, but by "posts" what exactly are you talking about?

In case you haven't noticed, Romney isnt the president yet, but has the tea party slobbering all over the chance to get their brand of nutballs into goverment.

Do you need any more explanation, or do you understand this yet?

---

Actually, I understood the concept before your explanation. And, I was shocked that Romney is not actually the President. Thanks for the newsflash. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/...s/facepalm.gif
" ....president and his staff *do* place." So yes, the jerk in the oval office matters in the end analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Seriously, RG; you're a smart guy.

Republicans suck. Democrats Suck. Everything else is details. Back away from the debate; stop trying to get either of these parties elected. "The lesser of two evils" is still fucking evil!

Intelligent people can agree to disagree - and they can compromise; from the first Constitutional Convention that has been a great strength of our nation - but these parties, what they have become; the people pulling the strings HAVE ALREADY FULLY COMPROMISED!! They agree on the important stuff; the stuff that enriches and empowers them and their friends - they maintain that power by keeping us distracted and arguing amongst ourselves about bullshit. It's why nothing ever really changes (From Compassionate Conservative to Hope and Change; wtf is different????)

Seriously, we STILL have the power to kick all the sumbitches out; to start over with a fresh slate of reasonable people. If we're too busy calling each other names; we'll never get to any type of a solution. They great tragedy of the past four years is we had TWO grass roots movements rise to shake up the Apple Cart; if they ever could have realized how much common ground there was between them, something could have be happening RIGHT NOW....unfortunately both movements were successfully co-opted by one of the big parties; and now they're just talking points on mailings soliciting donations.

Fuck them all.

---

The problem here is that both sides are not equal in the suckness department.

I have yet to see Democrats demonizing the moderates in their party and actively seeking to marginalize them the way the GOP has.

Sorry. I don't buy the "they are both equally sucky" narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Actually, I understood the concept before your explanation. And, I was shocked that Romney is not actually the President. Thanks for the newsflash. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/...s/facepalm.gif
" ....president and his staff *do* place." So yes, the jerk in the oval office matters in the end analysis.

---

At this point we are both saying about the same thing, we are just getting at the same concept from different angles. No need for a facepalm. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

At this point we are both saying about the same thing, we are just getting at the same concept from different angles. No need for a facepalm. :lol

---

Don't make me use the nuclear facepalm!:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

No context. No analysis. Just mindless aping of the preferred narrative.

That is the only way the right wants its propaganda disseminated.

Critical thinking about your ideas is not allowed, and is obviously indicative of some hidden agenda.

I think your bitching about someone having the nuts to call your bullshit for what it is, says volumes about your values.

---

I knew I shouldn't have added that last line, you ignored the rest of the post.

What I meant is, saying the media objected, indicates the media has a side. I have no objection to the media being critical of something a campaign puts out but, instead of parroting the opposing point of view, I'd prefer they force the campaign to explain theirs.

For instance, if the media, in this case, would ask the Republicans to explain how the Sebelius directive is gutting the Welfare work requirement instead of just saying nuh uh, fact checkers say your wrong, you might get a better response than, "we're not going to be lead around by fact checkers."

That's all I meant and it was a last minute addition to the post, after I saw the word object in the article. Sheesh!

I actually wouldn't mind Republicans winning this time around. I know no matter who's in office I'm going to be just fine. I just want to see if the Republican party can finish the job off of killing this country once and for all :lol I thought 2008 would have been the wake up call but I guess Americans just haven't been kicked in the teeth enough by the GOP to feel that real pain yet. If they're going to fall for this trickle down, deregulation nonsense AGAIN I say the American people deserve the ass kicking that's eventually coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

^^Your heros continue to not let facts get in the way. :lol

FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rya...070905927.html

---

Let's look at the first checked fact...

Quote:

---

RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."

THE FACTS: Ryan's claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.
In addition, Ryan's own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program's spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.

---

The fact-checker's "THE FACTS" doesn't even address what Ryan said. It bitches about Ryan's plan which, by the way, isn't the Romney/Ryan plan.

Where does it say that Ryan's statement Obama is going to cut $716 billion from Medicare is not factual?

Not to mention, this fact-check comes from the organization and bureau whose chief was fired for saying, Republicans "are happy to party with black people drowning."

With fact-checking like this, I can see why the Republican Campaign would say what they said.

Went to lunch and fell behind on this thread. Can someone bring me up to speed with regards to whether or not yoni and rg have reached a consensus on which party is drowning closer to the surface yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Let's look at the first checked fact...


The fact-checker's "THE FACTS" doesn't even address what Ryan said. It bitches about Ryan's plan which, by the way, isn't the Romney/Ryan plan.

Where does it say that Ryan's statement Obama is going to cut $716 billion from Medicare is not factual?

Not to mention, this fact-check comes from the organization and bureau whose chief was fired for saying, Republicans "are happy to party with black people drowning."

With fact-checking like this, I can see why the Republican Campaign would say what they said.

---

You can attempt to parse the words as if some sort of armchair lawyer all you want, but the bottom line is that Mr Ryan's speech was deceptive in what he didn't say, not necessarily in what he did say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

You can attempt to parse the words as if some sort of armchair lawyer all you want, but the bottom line is that Mr Ryan's speech was deceptive in what he didn't say, not necessarily in what he did say.

---

:lmao Okay, I'll bite, what didn't he say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

:lmao Okay, I'll bite, what didn't he say?

---

He didn't say that his budget also included the 716B cuts in Medicare.

He didn't say the GM plant closed down before Obama took office.

He didn't say he voted against Bowles Simpson.

He didn't say that he asked for stimulus for his backyard.

When you are attacking your opponent for these exact policy decisions it is intellectually dishonest to leave out these facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

He didn't say that his budget also included the 716B cuts in Medicare.

---

The Romney plan doesn't include the cuts, why would he talk about a plan his boss rejected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

He didn't say the GM plant closed down before Obama took office.

---

You're right and wrong; the plant actually ceased production in 2009 but, that wasn't his point. Obama stood at that plant in 2008 and promised those people if they elected him, his policies would ensure they would remain open for another 100 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

He didn't say he voted against Bowles Simpson.

---

So?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

He didn't say that he asked for stimulus for his backyard.

---

Debatable and, since many Republicans voted for the stimulus, I'm not sure who would care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

When you are attacking your opponent for these exact policy decisions it is intellectually dishonest to leave out these facts.

---

Except that he represents a Romney/Ryan ticket with policies that purport to be fundamentally different from what Congressman Ryan was proposing, even less than a year ago. In other words, he had no obligation to talk about his plans that aren't being incorporated by the candidate.

Glad I could help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What's the context of that statement?

---

The context of the statement is "we're not going to deal with criticism of fact checkers, whoever those might be"...

I'm not even sure why you're carrying water on this matter, tbh. The fact that the GOP strategists openly admit they're rolling along with bullshit because it's working for them is much more transparent than trying to spin the same bullshit, like Barry does.

I'll fact check that Ryan speech

http://theconservativetreehouse.file...n-schultz1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Sorry. I don't buy the "they are both equally sucky" narrative.

---

Neither do I, re-read the post.

Years ago you were a reasonable guy; would actually listen to arguments. More and more you've become as much a mouthpiece for the Democrats as ANY poster in here is for the Republicans.

Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The Romney plan doesn't include the cuts, why would he talk about a plan his boss rejected?


You're right and wrong; the plant actually ceased production in 2009 but, that wasn't his point. Obama stood at that plant in 2008 and promised those people if they elected him, his policies would ensure they would remain open for another 100 years.


So?


Debatable and, since many Republicans voted for the stimulus, I'm not sure who would care.


Except that he represents a Romney/Ryan ticket with policies that purport to be fundamentally different from what Congressman Ryan was proposing, even less than a year ago. In other words, he had no obligation to talk about his plans that aren't being incorporated by the candidate.

Glad I could help.

---

Look, I thought it was a well crafted and potentially effective speech for the reasons you noted above. Now, it's up to the Obama political machine to go out and lay out the facts that I noted above. When the people hear these facts, I think they'll view Mr Ryan as a hypocrite. Hopefully that will help them make a more informed decision in November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Look, I thought it was a well crafted and potentially effective speech for the reasons you noted above. Now, it's up to the Obama political machine to go out and lay out the facts that I noted above. When the people hear these facts, I think they'll view Mr Ryan as a hypocrite. Hopefully that will help them make a more informed decision in November.

---

Oh, I think O's minions are going to be too busy spinning their own bullshit to address Ryans speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The context of the statement is "we're not going to deal with criticism of fact checkers, whoever those might be"...

---

And, considering the type of fact-checking going on, I can see why he would make that statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not even sure why you're carrying water on this matter, tbh. The fact that the GOP strategists openly admit they're rolling along with bullshit because it's working for them is much more transparent than trying to spin the same bullshit, like Barry does.

---

They said the ad is effective. That's not admitting it's not factual.

And, again, I've already demonstrated where Sebelius own words validate the position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Look, I thought it was a well crafted and potentially effective speech for the reasons you noted above. Now, it's up to the Obama political machine to go out and lay out the facts that I noted above. When the people hear these facts, I think they'll view Mr Ryan as a hypocrite. Hopefully that will help them make a more informed decision in November.

---

How so? Is the Presidential candidate supposed to adopt every idea his Vice-Presidential pick has ever endorsed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, I think O's minions are going to be too busy spinning their own bullshit to address Ryans speech.

---

I disagree. The dems are now losing on the medicare issue. You will be seeing the facts that I pointed out above in ads and incorporated into their stump speeches and their rebuttals at the DNC next week...as they should be. They would be fools to not go after Ryan and his record as a congressman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

How so? Is the Presidential candidate supposed to adopt every idea his Vice-Presidential pick has ever endorsed?

---

Nope. But that does not mean they cannot use his congressional voting record against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, considering the type of fact-checking going on, I can see why he would make that statement.

---

:lol the problem you have with 'fact-checking' is well known. As long as it carries water for you team, you're ok with it. Otherwise, it's bullshit. Very boutons-esque...

Everybody doesn't live in your fantasy world though. There's plenty of fact checkers out there, and for a plethora of topics, there's not a lot to debate. If I post "Yoni told me he rapes little children", that's patently false, not a matter of opinion or degrees of truth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

They said the ad is effective. That's not admitting it's not factual.

---

I don't expect them to admit anything. After all, their statement is saying basically that: facts are overrated.

That didn't take long: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/30/ne...nst-paul-ryan/

:lol www.wrongforthemiddleclass.com

It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Parse away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

I disagree. The dems are now losing on the medicare issue. You will be seeing the facts that I pointed out above in ads and incorporated into their stump speeches and their rebuttals at the DNC next week...as they should be. They would be fools to not go after Ryan and his record as a congressman.

---

I hope we see those "facts" in Democrats ads; they're stupid rebuttals.