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

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.