“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage... I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” ~ Dan Cathy
The recent announced boycott of Chick-Fil-A by homosexual activists for statements that it's COO made is, I think, a good idea. I think they should boycott everybody that makes statements that offends them.
So, I want to announce right here that I believe homosexuals are perverts.
Boycott me.
When you see me coming, go back into your closet. Stop bragging about your chosen sexual proclivities in my presence. Don't make out with each other where I can see you. Don't hold hands in front of me.
Boycott me.
You men (and I use the term loosely), stop swaying your hips when you walk, straighten out your wrists, dress like a man, quit talking like a woman. Stop lisping.
Boycott me.
You women (again, I use the term loosely), grow your hair out. Dress, walk, and talk like women. Wear makeup, high heels, and carry purses like normal women.
Boycott me.
These and all other overt acts of degeneration and perversion in my presence make me want to vomit. So stop.
For my physical health and well being, boycott me.
All of you homosexuals: Stop trying to convince me that you are normal and that your perversion is natural. It's annoying, and you'll never going to convince me anyway.
Boycott me and my progeny.
And, most importantly, stop trying to teach my children and grandchildren that it's just another normal and acceptable lifestyle.
Boycott me.
Yes, please. for God's sake, please, boycott me!
108 comments:
Love it when you try to act butch.
Ducky, obviously you are a homosexual. I don't care what you think. You can boycott me, too.
I don't give a hoot one way or the other about homo issues-not my cup of tea. But Rosie and I attended the Chik-fil-A Appreciation day and it was amazing!! We went to support the CEO and to protest the Nazi Mayors!!! The Oldsmar Fla. store was JAM PACKED!!!!
U-S-A! U-S-A!!
HMMMM.....Why does the queer "daffy-dickie" hate American values??I, too wish he would boycott the Pearl... His pathetic and stooped ad hominem remarks are really lame.
Maybe the anonymous troll "jim" will boycott, too.
It hasn't been all that long ago that the Diagnostic Manual for psychiatry listed homosexuality as a perversion.
Hatred is the result of Progressiveism.
Chik-fil-A is not anyone's enemy. Yet they are the enemy of the leftist's.
The Liberals who chose to boycott this place resemble a pile of vile Nazi excrement.
AOW, yes, we know it's a perversion and no amount of Liberal boo-hooing will change that fact.
This post was written with tongue firmly in cheek, but, as you can tell from Duck breaths comment, satire is lost on Liberals.
Dittohead, thanks for visiting. I just wish they would really boycott my blog, but alas, they are much too stupid to take a hint.
I just wish they would really boycott my blog
And so it just becomes a circle jerk then.
Anyone who call homosexuality "normal" has never sorked an interlocking puzzle.
Some parts just don't fit right.
They are, by definition, perverts.
Worked
Well Joe, they're kicking Evangelical ass.
Thing is that most Americans are decent open minded people and Evangelicals are going to have to figure that out to be welcome outside their ghettos.
" they're kicking Evangelical ass."
Yeah, the homo's surely showed the evangelicals on Wednesday, August 1st, didn't they? Ran us Christians right out of Chick-fil-a didn't they?
Now, you're just embarrassing yourself. Go away.
Chick-fil-a? Really.. Youre all worked up over chicken? Honestly we would all be better off if nobody ate there.
Joe, you may be even more smartest than Mark. Congrats on that mail-order degree.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the satire and willingness to stand against this sinful lifestyle. I'm really amazed at the number of people on FB who talk about all their "gay friends" and get upset that I won't embrace this perversion and call it normal. Somehow, I'm lacking in love by sticking to the truth that gays need to repent of their sin, and embrace Christ as Savior. But alas, we are just so closed minded an all...
Joe, try one of these
Parkie, You know it isn't about the chicken, but then I may be overestimating your intelligence.
Anyway, I asked you to boycott me. If you're so kind and compassionate as you homosexuals want us to believe, you'd respect my wishes.
Evangelicals aren't the only people who oppose SSM as evidenced by the 32 states that have voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I don't see that as an ass-kicking.
What's more, the Chick-fil-a situation shows that more than Evangelicals will support the right of a private individual to express an opinion without interference by gov't or activism. There were even supporters of SSM who supported Cathy. Again, no ass-kicking at all.
"I asked you to boycott me."
Marky.. Im just trying to save you from all the evil out there. I cant possibly turn my back on you.
The best way you can save me from evil is to stop visiting my blog. You are the evil.
Sorry Marky.. I think you have me confused with marsha. Hes the one in black clothing, cape, top hat, and twirling his handlebar mustache.
Its so bad for you you cant even tell which side is always right.
Hey, Mark!
I'm evil, dude. When a clinical idiot like Parkie says I'm evil, it must be true. He couldn't explain why that might be so, but if he says it, while spitting up his soft food, then by golly...
It's the 99% vs the 1%, Mark. 99% of the world's population are normal, and the 1% are abnormal. But those 1 percenters sure are vocal.
Ahh.. Marsha! Talk about clinical..
Even on vacation youre still a douche. Congratulations. Im sure your wife must be proud.
As for you being evil... I'm pretty sure I just explained it.
"Hes the one in black clothing, cape, top hat, and twirling his handlebar mustache."
Oh, yeah, Parkie, that explains a lot!
Except....where have you seen him wearing black clothing, cape, etc? In your head? That proves what exactly?
Stop already, you're just making yourself look whacko.
This post was satire, I admit, but really, I expected much more vitriol from the resident moonbats than these few weak responses.
"Douche" is Parkie's new favorite word. He must have read it rummaging through his mother's personal items.
Nice posts, i’m very like it. It’s very helpfull.
KEEP SPIRIT BLOGGING !
Douche my favorite word? lol.. marsha.. you wanted me to call you that.
Sure, little troll-boy. Whatever you say.
Im glad we agree.
Whatever you say, little troll.
PICK UP AA COPY OF THIS WEEK'S NEWSWEEK-WHAT A HOOT!!!
Check out this fact check of the dishonest and inaccurate Newsweek cover article.
wow.. Ferguson is getting torn to bits.
Hey Kids, What time is it???
Who's the funniest clown we know?
Joeybiden!
Who's the clown on O"backie's show?
Joeybiden!
His feet are big, his tummy's stout,
But we could never do without,
Joey, Joey, Joey biden!
Who has fuzzy-wuzzy hair?
Joeybiden!
It's partly red but mostly bare.
Joeybiden!
And since the day that he was born,
He's honked and honked and honked his horn.
Joey, Joey, Joeybiden!
Hey.. look.. its racist Traitor Rick.. again... Good to see you!
Hey.. look.. its Parkie the cretinous troll.. again.. like a herpes... pretending he has something to say while proving he doesn't.
Heh.. marsha.. have you seen Ricky's blog?
Hey troll. Have you seen a counselor?
marsha.. have you stopped beating your wife?
Have you stopped molesting barnyard animals?
You're such a clever little troll.
I'll take that as a "no".
Your maturity level is astoundingly nonexistent.
I'll take that as another attempt to pretend you have status from which you can justifiably condescend to anyone. In the meantime, apparently you haven't stopped molesting barnyard animals.
Also, remember that reprimands from such as yourself elicit only laughter for the audacity. And even that is more than it deserves.
Sadly.. Mark has vanished.
Guess he had a camerawoman at the RNC convention to throw peanuts at.
Sadly, Parkie has not vanished.
Guess his momma let him use the computer again.
Clint Eastwood is the MAN!
Clint Eastwood is the MAN!
Absolutely. The perfect summation of the Republican convention: A bunch of crotchety white men angrily attacking an imaginary version of President Obama.
I think he was mocking his audience.
Apparently Jim missed the women and minorities that spoke at the convention. Jim refers to the left's imaginary version of the Republican Party.
I think he is a mockery of adult perception of reality.
No, I saw them. They were still angrily attacking an imaginary version of President Obama.
Which imaginary version would that be? That he is a failure? That he has done nothing that served to reverse whatever it was he said he inherited, but instead added to it? That he has been divisive as a president rather then the One that would bring us all together? What have they said about him that isn't true?
That he wants to push Grandma over the cliff? No, that was Dems speaking of Republicans.
That he wants to wage war on women? No, that was Dems speaking of Republicans.
That he hates immigrants? No, that's Dems speaking of Republicans.
That he wants to oppress minorities? No, that's Dems speaking of Republicans.
That he wants to protect the rich at the cost to the middle class? No, that's Dems speaking of Republicans.
Which imaginary version of Barry do you mean?
What have they said about him that isn't true?
That he is weakening welfare to work rules.
That he is gutting Medicare by $716B
That he promised to keep the Janesville auto plant open.
That he said that entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses.
That he went on an apology tour.
That the Stimulus didn't work. (To quote your lie, "That he has done nothing that served to reverse whatever it was he said he inherited..."
That he is trying to suppress the military vote in Ohio.
That's a start.
---That he is weakening welfare to work rules.
"WASHINGTON – Today, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Michigan), Education & Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minnesota), Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act, that would prohibit the Obama Administration from unilaterally granting itself the authority to exempt states from the work requirements that were a critical element of welfare reform enacted in 1996 – potentially opening the door for activities like bed rest, smoking cessation and exercise to be counted as work for the purposes of complying with federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) requirements."
Read more here
Waiving requirements without congressional approval is weakening the current welfare rules.
---That he is gutting Medicare by $716B
Videos in this link show Barry is taking money from Medicare.
---That he promised to keep the Janesville auto plant open.
Seems like he promised twice". What? He didn't say specifically "I promise to keep it open"? Nice try.
---That he said that entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses.
Say what?
He most obviously did say "you didn't build that". Sure. His point was that no one does anything on their own. But his point was still apart from reality. Saying that one gathered together a team, paid them and then they all worked on the dude's plan is still that dude building things on his own. Pretending the entrepreneurial could not succeed without roads and such is nonsense and shows he doesn't understand what building businesses is all about. In any case, he did say "you didn't build that".
---That he went on an apology tour.
Sounds like apologies to me.
---That the Stimulus didn't work.
The links I provide here, here and here show that the answer isn't so cut and dried. However, that it isn't suggests that it is not a lie to say it hasn't worked. If it had, it would be more obvious. I could have listed a ton of links, with lefty links saying "yes, it did", right wing links saying "no, not really and here's why we say so" and many more that refuse to take a position either way.
---That he is trying to suppress the military vote in Ohio.
I'm not up on this story, but it seems as if Jim's representation of the charge against Obama is the real lie. The link here provides insight into the debate. It seems there is justification for difference in voting rules for military and civilians that the Dems want to ignore. My charge would be that, as usual, the left doesn't have the same regard for the military that the rest of us do.
Jim will have to start over. We were talking "lies" here.
Waiving requirements without congressional approval is weakening the current welfare rules.
Possibly but that's not what happened. Why don't the Republicans pass a law that says the president can't pass a Constitutional amendment. It would be the same foolishness. They can create a bill that says anything, and this one says nonsense.
Because the president in no way weakened the welfare to work rules. At the request of governors including Mitt Romney, he allowed governors some flexibility IN THEIR STATES in how different aspects of getting people back to work would be administered BY THEIR STATES with the REQUIREMENT that any change MUST, MUST produce a 20% improvement in the welfare to work success rate.
Did you notice how neither Ryan nor Romney mentioned this lie at the RNC. They realized people were catching on.
There is no way in the universe that this could be characterized as "weakening" the current welfare rules. UYAAR.
Videos in this link show Barry is taking money from Medicare.
Who the hell is Barry? Words, words, words, mis-characterizing words.
There is no doubt that ACA REDUCES Medicare costs by $716B. However, there is NO CUT to services or benefits to Medicare patients. The reductions are to the payments to providers and hospitals and were negotiated WITH THE HOSPITALS and PROVIDERS because under ACA they would make up the difference with more patients.
This is not only NOT gutting Medicare, it extends the solvency of Medicare by eight years.
Furthermore, while Obama uses the money to close the Medicare part D donut hole and expand coverage to millions of uninsured, Ryan's plan that makes the EXACT SAME CUTS uses the money to give tax cuts to the wealthy.
Saying Obama is gutting Medicare is a HUGE lie.
What? He didn't say specifically "I promise to keep it open"? Nice try.
Yeah, he didn't say that. The dates are immaterial. GM makes the decisions about what plants to open and which to close. On the other hand, with Obama's help, many factories and businesses that otherwise would have closed are in operation today.
Seems like he promised twice" No. He did not.
He most obviously did say "you didn't build that".
Obviously. He also obviously said, "and" and "today" and "for" and "if" and "yet". You can take any clause in a paragraph and characterize it any way you want to deceive people.
Saying that one gathered together a team, paid them and then they all worked on the dude's plan is still that dude building things on his own.
Sure, but that's off the subject. His team did not build the sewer system, the electrical grid, the interstate highways by which his parts are delivered and his products are shipped, and the other elements of the infrastructure that are critical to our economy and the success of people who built their businesses.
More...
Regarding "apologies":
Your source suggests that Obama apologized or planned to apologize to Japan for the bombing of Hiroshima. I read the Wikileaks cable, and there is NO SUCH suggestion that Obama wanted to, planned to, or did apologize. The cable said that the Japanese wanted a "simple visit" to Hiroshima because a larger visit with fanfare might set the public's expectation that the president would apologize.
Your link is wrong.
1. Obama did not apologize in Strasbourg. He described an attitude among some in America and followed it by noting an "insidious" anti-americanism in Europe. No apology. A call to set aside these attitudes and renew the American-European partnership.
2. In Ankara, he did not apologize. He said that "the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history." How does this constitute an apology? Furthermore, are his words untrue?
3. In Spain the link shows he said, "we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms." Whether or not one agrees with the statement, it in no way constitutes an apology.
4. CIA headquarters: “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn.”
This is an apology? Did Bush "apologize" when he confessed that it turned out there were no WMD in Iraq? Admitting a mistake isn't an apology.
5. National Archives: This is not an apology. It is a statement about hasty decisions and trimming facts to fit ideology.
There is not one single apology in this. Not one. None. The apology tour is made up crap. In other words, a big fat lie.
Stimulus: Your fist link does not refute that the stimulus worked. It doesn't like the survey questions.
The second link is not a study of the stimulus and does not say the Stimulus didn't work. It claims that improvements to the economy MIGHT have come without the Stimulus and suggests that tax cuts have more impact than spending. Yet the Stimulus was 40% tax cuts. So this link fails to demonstrate that the Stimulus didn't work.
Your third link merely presents both sides of the argument and concludes that the success or failure of the Stimulus "will be debated for a long time to come."
None of your links refutes that the Stimulus worked. Here is an article examining in more depth nine studies of the Stimulus of which six said there was significant positive impact from the Stimulus and three said the impact was small or impossible to detect.
The assertion that the Stimulus failed is a lie.
My charge would be that, as usual, the left doesn't have the same regard for the military that the rest of us do.
The truth is that the charge and your comment above are total hogwash.
What your NRO article leaves out is that in 2008 and 2010, ALL citizens of Ohio could vote up to the Monday before election day. All citizens. This was in reaction to the long lines in some Ohio precincts in 2004.
Republican vote suppressors passed a law that said that for everyone EXCEPT the military, early voting would stop on Friday, eliminating weekend days in which most people did not have to take off work to vote. Since the last three days was ONLY available to ACTIVE military and their families, veterans would be negatively impacted. At no time did the administration attempt to restrict military votes. They were only trying to restore the voting access that ALL citizens had prior to the vote suppressing rule.
John Fund's article is a LIE and your "charge" is a LIE.
Jim,
It seems you're using the Politifact method of determining what is or isn't fact. I'm short on time, but I'll briefly touch on a few things.
"Possibly but that's not what happened."
Are you saying Barry got congressional approval for the waivers? Regardless of whether or not such waivers were sought by any governor, if congressional approval is required, then Barry passing them out is beyond his authority. Also, were there strict guidelines attached to insure that the 20% requirement. And how is that measured?
How many "lies" do you require that Romney/Ryan mention, BTW? Not surprised that omitting one is taken by you to suggest they "know" it's a lie.
"There is no doubt that ACA REDUCES Medicare costs by $716B. However, there is NO CUT to services or benefits to Medicare patients."
I know lefties don't get it, but taking that much dough out of an already cash deprived system must result in cuts to service and quality somewhere. Because Barry and his boys tell you it won't affect service or quality, you buy it as gospel. Normal people aren't that easily taken.
Regarding "you didn't build that":
"Sure, but that's off the subject."
Not at all. You buy his crap that infrastructure is the reason they were able to succeed. Or, that without roads and such, they couldn't have. This is the only way to take this crap. The successful succeed regardless of the conditions present at the time. This is one of the lamest arguments in favor of stiffing the successful out of their profits ever to come down the tax-payer built pike. What this argument is is an unintentional admission that Barry and the left have no idea what it takes to start a business.
More later...
It seems you're using the Politifact method of determining what is or isn't fact.
Funny how facts aren't facts if they don't fit your "reality".
Who the hell is Barry?
Are you saying [Obama] got congressional approval for the waivers?
You and your friends are changing the argument here. Nice pivot! The original "argument" (lie) was that Obama had weakened the rules and now it's "he didn't get Congressional approval to make changes." You HAVE to make this pivot because you can't get past the fact that the original charge is a lie.
if congressional approval is required,
As to the updated charge, many laws give the agencies who administer those laws the responsibility to set the rules by which the law will be administered. For example, a law that sets an aircraft safety standard will rely on the FAA to develop the rules by which manufacturers and airlines will meet those rules and be held accountable to do so. Congressional approval is not required. If it were, agencies would never be able to update or improve rules.
There is no indication from you or anyone else that the Obama administration doesn't have the authority to change without Congressional approval the rules of administration of the Welfare to Work law as long as the result continues to meet or surpasses the standards of the original law. Since the rules change REQUIRES a 20% improvement to the original standard, there is no weakening of the rule, but an improvement of the result.
Also, were there strict guidelines attached to insure that the 20% requirement.
Surely the same as the original guidelines. Why would anyone expect guidelines requiring a 20% improvement be less strict than the original?
And how is that measured?
Obviously the same as the original standards.
This is a pivot where you have tripped on your own shoestrings.
Not surprised that omitting one is taken by you to suggest they "know" it's a lie.
When you say it and then it is debunked many times over, then you repeat it, you are either lying or you are an ignoramus.
taking that much dough out of an already cash deprived system must result in cuts to service and quality somewhere.
No, it must not. You are making an assumption not supported by the truth. If you make an agreement with your auto mechanic to reduce his rate from $90/hr to $80/hr because you were going to start bringing your son's '85 Chevy to him doesn't mean you aren't going to get all the service and quality required to keep your car in top shape. Obamacare negotiated with hospitals and providers to lower the payments to them since they would be getting more business from newly insured to make up the profit difference.
And the Ryan budget makes the same cuts.
You buy his crap that infrastructure is the reason they were able to succeed.
Nobody ever said that. Ever. Nobody ever claimed the maternity ward is the reason you were born.
Or, that without roads and such, they couldn't have.
How do they get raw materials in and product out? Catapults and parachutes? How do they have a method of payment without currency and a monetary system? Catapult chickens?
The successful succeed regardless of the conditions present at the time.
Name some.
What this argument is is an unintentional admission that Barry and the left have no idea what it takes to start a business.
Really? So why do people who have created immensely successful business agree with him?
Don't have much time to deal with all of your nonsensical responses, so you'll have to deal with what little I present.
First of all, I do not deal in terms of "my" reality. This is a common lefty ploy. There is only reality. One might question my perception of reality, but then you'll have to prove my perception if faulty, which, though you seem to be trying to that here, haven't succeeded thus far.
You think we're changing the argument by speaking of congressional approval. Not true. It's part of the argument. Barry is weakening the rules by circumventing them with waivers. What don't you get about this simple reality? Rules lack strength when they are not followed, or, lacking the people's will to follow, when they lack enforcement. Rules are worthless if they are ignored, as Barry is so adept at doing. He has many examples of sidestepping rules, protocols and procedures in order to get what he wants or to make things happen.
As to congressional approval, even the Government Accounting Office confirmed that what Barry wanted to do, or was offering to do at the request of someone else, was beyond his authority and required congressional approval.
more later
Clearly you must be living in some other reality since you keep talking about some guy named Barry, and there is no policy maker by that name in the US reality.
[Maybe you mean Obama] is weakening the rules by circumventing them with waivers.
This is simply nonsensical. If I were commissioner of the NFL and I gave guidelines that due to high level of injuries in AFC West, Refs in that division are to be more aggressive in calling roughing the passer penalties, that wouldn't weaken the rule; it would make it stronger.
Nobody is circumventing any rules. The rules are the method by which the standards of the law are met. HHS is not lowering standards; they are RAISING the standards for states that are granted waivers. If HHS were lowering standards, that would be weakening the law. HHS is not granting waivers to the standards. HHS is granting waivers to the existing rules for meeting those standards AND requiring that the state getting the waivers produces results at least 20% BETTER than the law's standards or the waiver will be revoked.
Now, in what reality is this "weakening" the Welfare to Work law?
You are clearly having difficulty differentiating law, standards, and rules.
Let's try this example:
US policy makers want to import less oil and decide one way to do that is to increase fuel efficiency in automobiles. So they pass a LAW that says we have a goal to reduce oil imports and to do that we are setting a STANDARD for fuel efficiency of 40 MPG, and it tells the DOT to figure out the rules by which the standard will be met.
DOT says the rule is you must meet the 40 MPG rule by making your cars smaller and only 4 cylinders. DOT has a test track and checks out each model to make sure they meet the 40 MPG standard.
GM engineers decide that they can meet or exceed the 40 MPG standard by upgrading the fuel injection system, changing tire design, changing the front end for less drag and using lighter materials without reducing the size of the car. They ask DOT for waiver of the RULES for meeting the 40 MPG standard.
DOT says, OK, we'll grant you a waiver on the size RULE but our new rule is that you can meet the standard any way you want IF you can get 44 MPG for your cars. We'll test them on our track as we always do to make sure they get 44 MPG, and if they do, you can continue to use your own techniques for getting better mileage. If not, your waiver is revoked.
Hopefully this is simple enough for you to understand. There is no circumventing, no change to the law, no weakening of standards, no ignoring rules, and no difference in the enforcement. Just more flexibility for the car maker and better performance in achieving the goal.
Government Accounting Office confirmed
The GAO "confirmed" nothing. They have a counsel. The counsel gave an opinion. The White House also has a counsel. The White House counsel has a differing opinion. If Hatch wants to pursue the issue, he can file suit against HHS and the court can decide if the change is a guideline or a rule. What a waste of time for something that guarantees better results for the country!
Your examples ignore an important point: who gets to give the waiver. In your DOT example, you clearly state a DOT rule and DOT being appealed for a waiver and DOT granting it. Barry doesn't make law. Congress does. Barry cannot give out waivers for laws Congress passes unless in crafting the law, Congress gave that authority to him.
It also doesn't matter what Barry's attorneys say. It is hardly an appropriate comparison to say that Barry consulted his attorneys while Hatch consulted an impartial government office.
At the same time, Bush took heat for decisions he made that his lawyers told him he had the authority to make. Now, you want to say that Barry can do it.
And once again, since you seem to be incapable of understanding simple concepts, when a president overrides a law, the law is then weakened. A law is only as strong as the respect for it given by the people for whom the law was intended to guide.
Your response reveals your lack of understanding of the concepts involved. It puzzles me that you don't get this.
Your examples ignore an important point: who gets to give the waiver... [Obama] doesn't make law. Congress does.
And Congress AUTHORIZES the administration to make the rules and administer the rules.
There was NO WAIVER of ANY LAW. None whatsoever. The law sets a standard that says that X percent of people will return to work within Y amount of time. The rule says how the standard of the law will be met. A waiver of the rules is not a waiver of the law (and a waiver does not in this case mean the rules are thrown out the window). This waiver says "you can try a different method from those in the current rules to achieve required standard, but ONLY if you
achieve results 20% better than the standard.
[Obama] cannot give out waivers for laws Congress passes unless in crafting the law, Congress gave that authority to him.
Obama has given out NO waivers to any LAW. Congress gave the administration the authority to create the rules and to change the rules with Congressional review. A RULE is not a LAW.
It is hardly an appropriate comparison to say that [Obama] consulted his attorneys while Hatch consulted an impartial government office.
Baloney. A counsel doesn't MAKE the law or a ruling. A counsel renders and argues an opinion. The differing opinions can be judged by a court. It doesn't matter much. Worst case, they go to court, court sides with GAO counsel, HHS submits rule to Congress, and no way the Senate joins a joint resolution to reject. Waste of time.
And once again, since you seem to be incapable of understanding simple concepts, when a president overrides a law, the law is then weakened.
And once again, since YOU seem to be incapable of understanding simple concepts, the President has NOT overridden any LAW. The law is the law. The law remains the law.
If the administration doubles the penalties for violating a law, does that weaken the law?
I have tried to find something that shows Barry, or anyone, has authority, was given authority by Congress or in any way can "change the rules" of the current welfare policy. I looked at the 1996 Act, TANF, and found no such authority granted.
Here is an explanation. If you have trouble with it, let me know. Here is another, and here is another. All speak to the same consequences of the move, which weakens the "rules" or the law itself.
"Baloney. A counsel doesn't MAKE the law or a ruling."
Whew! It's a damned good thing I didn't say or even imply such a thing! But what you choose to ignore is the point I was making. It is easy to get a favorable opinion or "counsel" from one's own attorneys. Hatch didn't go to his own, as Barry did with White House attorneys. THAT was the point. Nothing more.
"And once again, since YOU seem to be incapable of understanding simple concepts, the President has NOT overridden any LAW. The law is the law. The law remains the law."
Obviously, this is drool. I've provided four total links showing that Barry has tried to alter, evade, go around, circumvent, ignore the law in a manner that renders it weakened by side-stepping the clearly laid out requirements for work. Sure, the law remains. But what good is it if not followed as intended? It is weakened by virtue of Barry's actions. It is as I said: a law is only as strong as the people's willingness to obey and enforce it.
As to your last question, it is stupid. The administration can't levy fines. It is not Barry's job to do so. BUT, if we pretend he could, it certainly wouldn't weaken it to increase penalties as doing so has a deterrent effect. If people didn't care about penalties, it wouldn't affect the strength of the law at all.
However, I'm guessing you're gagging on the use of the word "weaken" in this context. I don't care. What's relevant is that the charge against Barry actions in regards to the welfare rules having a negative impact on them is accurate.
I have tried to find something that shows [Obama], or anyone, has authority, was given authority by Congress or in any way can "change the rules" of the current welfare policy.
Well, your very first link clearly states that that authority is given:
"Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws."
I've read that first link. Although it seems reasonably accurate as to the technicalities of the memorandum, I believe it comes to the wrong conclusion. It states:
"The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law."
The memorandum states that waivers are ONLY granted to states that present plans that are likely to improve the work OUTCOMES. And it also states that if a state fails to meet improved performance, the waiver will be revoked.
I do not see how a memorandum requiring states to do measurably better than the law requires as "gutting" the law. What is important: strict adherence to the rules or a better result?
Your second link is just a ridiculous, fantasy interpretation of the memorandum.
"HHS eliminated the “work or look for work” requirement". This is false.
The third link is by Dick Morris. Dick Morris is right less often that a broken Mayan calendar. (Last week he announced that Romney would get a 5-6 point bounce from the RNC.) The man is a well known joke. But I did glance over it and note that he factually mis-characterizes the memorandum by implying that vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs counting towards participation rates is something new. The memorandum only allows a test project to extend the period for which this counts if results improve. He also a mis-quotes the memorandum when he plagiarizes text directly from your second link.
It's a damned good thing I didn't say or even imply such a thing!
You did imply that the opinion Hatch got from the GAO counsel was somehow more valid or correct than the White House counsel and should be given more weight.
So let's just get to the gist of this argument:
What's relevant is that the charge against [Obama]actions in regards to the welfare rules having a negative impact on them is accurate.
Since the memorandum was issued 28 days ago, it is impossible to tell what the impact on the rules is since I doubt that any waiver has yet been granted under the memorandum. And since the memorandum is designed specifically to provide results better than the original requirements, it is more likely that the impact will be positive rather than negative and at worst, neutral, since if no improvement is made, the waiver is revoked.
Underlying the argument is that if Obama does it, it's bad. Beyond that, he is clearly trying to get votes by making it easier for his base, welfare queens, to stay on welfare without working.
Have I got that about right?
I AGREE, and I have to think that anybody with an ounce of sense would agree, with Rowdy Yates' description of Barry Soetoro as being the biggest hoax, global warming not withstanding, ever perpetrated on the American People.
Not much time to flesh out a response to Jim's nonsensical last comment, I now offer this piece that explains just how Obama's actions weaken the welfare reform act.
I read the policy. It eliminates the work requirement which has been there for years.
Jim said: "Clearly you must be living in some other reality since you keep talking about some guy named Barry, and there is no policy maker by that name in the US reality."
I suggest you do some research, such as on this site, on of many. "Barry" is a name Barack Obama has actually gone by. So yes there is a policy maker with this name. Barack Obama.
You probably confused it with the fake names like "Obammy" he sometimes gets called, but again, this is carelessness/laziness on your part, as "Barry" is actually a valid name for him.
I read the policy. It eliminates the work requirement which has been there for years.
Jim said: "Clearly you must be living in some other reality since you keep talking about some guy named Barry, and there is no policy maker by that name in the US reality."
I suggest you do some research, such as on this site, on of many. "Barry" is a name Barack Obama has actually gone by. So yes there is a policy maker with this name. Barack Obama.
You probably confused it with the fake names like "Obammy" he sometimes gets called, but again, this is carelessness/laziness on your part, as "Barry" is actually a valid name for him.
"This piece" is from the Heritage Foundation, so should be considered with that in mind. There are a lot of "coulds" in it.
I notice that the article has not one single link to any official document regarding current or proposed rules to support the allegations. In fact the very first sentence contains an allegation that he not only fails to explain but fails to present any supporting evidence.
I will also mention that the memorandum allows for different work rules ONLY if a state applies for a waiver and ONLY if the waiver request meets HHS requirements.
I will also mention that these waivers were requested by GOP governors. Are we to believe that these governors are looking to keep people on welfare without working?
Furthermore, 29 out of 50 states have GOP governors. Are we also to believe that nearly 60% of the states will be rushing to HHS to get a waiver that will allow them to require less or no work while on welfare?
dmarks said,
I read the policy. It eliminates the work requirement which has been there for years.
No it doesn't. Please provide a link to the "policy" that you read so I can see how it eliminates anything.
I suggest you do some research, such as on this site, on of many...You probably confused it with the fake names like "Obammy" he sometimes gets called, but again, this is carelessness/laziness on your part,
Carelessness/laziness on my part? I suggest you go back in your hole and come back out when you've read a few posts on this site, posts with dozens of links to reference materials, articles, and sources I have been providing over the course of several years on this blog and others.
I also suggest you so some research into the word "snark" and familiarize yourself with that term since the concept appears to elude you.
Everyone who ever heard or read anything that any Coulter-type hack said or wrote or who has read any biographical material on the President knows that for some period of time in his youth, Barack Obama used the nickname "Barry". I used to go by a different nickname than the one I use here, but you will not ever see it on my business card, resume, office door, driver's license or anything else.
The President's name is Barack Obama, regardless of what name he may have used over 30 years ago. You won't find it on any laws that he has signed, on any official documents, on his driver's license or anything else having anything to do with his adult life. Calling the President "Barry" is an attempt at derision. You might as well call him "boy".
dmarks..
...its sort of like when marsha asked that I call him douche bag (or douche for short) or when he was signing off by the name cretin. While it was fun to call him by these names at first, it sort of gets old after awhile. Then its just time to move on.
Yet you don't move on, do you cretin? No. Like a herpes you return.
Jim,
The only thing you need to consider with regards to the Heritage Foundation is that you will be presented with truth, reason and wisdom.
Speaking of which, calling the president an asshole is derision, true or not. Calling him "Barry" is not. He's the one pretending he's one of the guys; droppin' his g's, for example. Typical of you to suggest it is akin to calling him "boy".
Calling him "Barry" is not.
What a dishonest steaming pile of crap! I suppose you also refer to Ali as "Cassius".
No, but I'd like to. It's a cool name and perfect for a boxer. "Cassius Clay". Way cool.
BUT, I might call him "Mo", rather than "Muhammed" every time, particularly if he consistently tried to portray himself as casual and one of the guys.
What's more, "Cassius" is no longer Ali's legal name. Nice try, though. (Not really.)
What's more, "Cassius" is no longer Ali's legal name. Nice try, though. (Not really.)
Barry was never Barack Obama's legal name. It was a nickname prior to his college years.
"Yet you don't move on"
9-11 marsha.. 9.. mf.. 11.. Never Forget.. you hate America.. but I dont.
btw.. it sounds like you want me to keep calling you douche or cretin.. okay.. Very odd.. but okay.
"I might call him "Mo"
Im guessing you would call him whatever he wants to be called.
"Nice try, though. (Not really.)"
Always contradicting yourself.
Who is Barry?
Jim, James, Jimmy, Jimbo,
Don't be such a Parklife. Barrack, Barry, Barely, Barrak-alock-a-ding-dong. All the same dude. I never said "Barry" was Obama's legal name ever. Even when he went by that name it wasn't. So freakin' what? In the meantime, Muhammed is no longer Cassius and hasn't been since he legally changed it from the latter to the former. See how this works, Jimmy? So you can drop the pretense of outrage at my "daring" to call your beloved "Barry".
Your last response is a hodge-podge of twisted logic in which you apparently can't even spell the president's name correctly when you try to use it.
It's not a matter of "daring" to call the president by his childhood nickname. It's a matter of demonstrating how you reveal yourself when you do it.
"...apparently can't even spell the president's name correctly..."
Apparently you need typos to make you feel better, huh? Pretty desperate.
And do you feel you had to divine my lack of respect for this particular president? Was it so hard to fathom based on my contempt for his policies and positions? What more can the use of the nickname reveal to you about me than that but what you want to believe about me? Like Parkie, and lefties in general, it seems clear that you need to believe the worst about me and the right. And THAT you lefties reveal about yourselves with incredible regularity.
"it seems clear that you need to believe the worst about me and the right."
haha.. I was wondering if you were going to crawl out from under your rock to respond.
Your post is a nice bit of projection. At least I dont believe the worst about you marsha. Honestly, I dont see what is so bad about you. You are who you are.. nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing bad in that.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Though responding to the cretin, Parkie is really pointless, I nonetheless feel compelled to do so.
Once again, troll, you display your utter dishonesty. Time and time again, including in this very thread of comments, you have demonstrated exactly what I have stated...that you need to believe the worst of your opponents. A mere five comments above this one, you state, about me "...you hate America..." I doubt, given an unlimited amount of time, that you could provide any hint, any shred of evidence, even any reasonable misinterpretation of anything I've ever said that would in any way suggest in the slightest that I hate America. That's projection. What you see in my comments to those like Jim and yourself are words like "apparently" and "seems" which indicates conclusions drawn from the comments you make. This gives those like Jim and yourself the invitation to refute the conclusion. YOU, on the other hand, are obliged to back up your accusations when stated so firmly as "...you hate America..." But you, as evidenced by your vast history on these here blogs, possess no ability or intelligence to provide such evidence. You only puke.
You are who you are, Benny. Absolutely nothing more, and by no means could there be anything less. There is so much that is bad in that.
The Anonymous Troll "jim" said:
Who the hell is Barry?
That IS the question, isn't it? Born in the USA or Kenya? Father Barrack Hussein O'Bama or Frank Davis? Or Lolo Soetoro? US Citizen or Indonesian? Muslim or Christian? etc. etc. Who knows?
He swore under oath that he was never known as "Barry Soetoro," but we know better.
lol.. marsha.. you operate by a different set of beliefs than I do. Thats just life.
You hating America was b/c you were making crazy ass comments on 9/11. I thought you could give it a rest that day.. but.. no.. you are compelled to comment.
The rest of you comment is simply more nonsense. From my perspective, there is no "worse" or "bad" set of ideals. It just people responding in their own way. That means you being a crazy homophobic racist is just you being you. Its not "bad" its not "good".. it just is. Idk.. just sort of shrug my shoulders and move on.
PS.. good work Traitor Rick! Surely you have some guns to buy and a bomb shelter to build.
PPS.. the Bears suck!
"That means you being a crazy homophobic racist is just you being you."
Yet, as usual, you don't prove this contention, but merely proclaim it, projecting what you need to believe about me, in order to give you something to pretend makes you less than the loser you are. "Look," you say to yourself. "At least I'm not 'a crazy homophobic racist' like Art!" You need to believe this about me since you have nothing about yourself that gives you anything but self-loathing.
Take this weird shit about "making crazy ass comments" on 9/11. Here, you pretend you give special reverence to the date that I don't simply because you so desperately need to feel superior. I'm sure that desperation a cretin like yourself feels is truly horrible, but it doesn't justify such weak attempts to project onto me that which isn't the least bit true and thus unsupportable an accusation to make.
You have finally said one thing that is absolutely true. I do indeed operate on a different set of beliefs. Mine are based on truth, fact, logic and reality. Yours is based on...well... who could possibly know since you have yet to steel yourself enough to offer a substantive comment anywhere you've imposed your pathetic presence? All anyone can tell is that you don't like what I have to say (or Mark, Rick or any conservative) but you can't say what is wrong with it, what would be a better position and why or anything akin to a real opinion. Instead, from day 1, you've just cracked wise (or what passes for doing so in your playpen) and then wet yourself when volley is returned, like the pathetic little troll you are.
I have remained open to real discussion. You reject it under the cowardly pretense that "you'll only say this" or "you'll only do that". As always, you're a punk, a coward, a weak and pathetic pee-soaked little cretin. Believe what you like about me, reprobate. I couldn't care less. Bye-by now.
Halfway through it, Jimbo. Don't know what you're expecting or what you intend by having this read, but thus far I'm seeing problems. Can't wait to get to the punch line, but didn't expect nine pages. Will finish later.
OK, good start.
"All anyone can tell is that you don't like what I have to say (or Mark, Rick or any conservative) but you can't say what is wrong with it.."
marsha.. the fact that you dont know who Michael Lewis is bothers me. And its not any conservative... just the dumb ones that I have trouble with. At least they can defend their positions without diving into name-calling and contradiction.. in the same sentence.
"Here, you pretend you give special reverence to the date that I don't simply because you so desperately need to feel superior."
lol.. I'll take that as an appology!
"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect —regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," the statement reads. "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."
So it goes.. Chick-fil-A taking a new course..
OK, Jim. I've read the article. Now what? To say it's a fluff piece is to point to the obvious. So what was your point of having anyone read the piece?
Jim, if you set out to prove Mr. Lewis has a serious and unreasonable man crush on Obama, mission accomplished!
Mark,
That's kinda what I was hinting, but want to hear why Jim thought it a good idea for us to read his article.
I thought you might find something of interest in reading about the man and not his politics and policies. I'm sorry that it didn't include tales of capitalist's flesh hanging from his teeth, admission of his Kenyan birth, the fact that he uses a prayer rug five times a day, that he's smoking crack in the oval office, and that he's still hoping to make the Haj sometime after 2016.
I guess he'll just always be "Barry" to you even though you never knew him or of him when he went by that name.
Jim,
I'd wager I knew more about him that most who voted for him, and possibly more than you. My hope was that there was something about this article that made some point for you, but you haven't one except the suggestion that we believe things about him that we haven't put forth. He won't always be "Barry" to me. After January, I'm hoping he'll be "former president", and then, not long after, a faded memory.
As to the article, I'd be more impressed if a George Will, Charles Krauthammer or anyone of the right were to have followed him around doing interviews and watching him play basketball. Then, we might get a possibly more objective article. I can't say that we have one with the Lewis piece.
I wouldn't argue with your claim that you know more about him TODAY than most people knew when they voted for him in 2008.
I would argue that you know more about him than I do.
Lewis is not a political journalist, pundit, or partisan. He's a writer. Will and Krauthammer are political and partisan. How would that make them more objective?
My point in offering this article is that it isn't political.
"How would that make them more objective?"
...To fit marsha's world view. That and he has no idea who Lewis is.
Jim,
I said, as one can clearly read:
"I'd wager I knew more about him that most who voted for him, and possibly more than you."
I will change "possibly" to "probably" and it seems that what I know about him now is far more accurate that what seems to be your knowledge of the guy.
And what can you tell me about Lewis that would prove he is not political? Has he stated that he has never given politics one single thought? That he has absolutely no opinion on anything regarding what any elected official represents or promises? He never votes? Are writers void of ideology, lacking in points of view, absent reason (like Parkie)? It doesn't matter what he's written in the past, what types of writing he's done, the subject matter he's covered. None of that has anything to do with whether a writer favors one party or the other, one candidate or the other. The tone of the article was clearly pro-Obama.
I'd wager that what you "know" about Obama at any time and what is reality is often very different.
George Will is a political journalist. Charles Krauthammer is a political journalist. They both have records of writing that demonstrate years of opinion-writing from a conservative point of view.
Michael Lewis may like Obama and may have voted for him. But there is little if any record of him writing politically ideological books or columns. This article is not about politics and not about ideology. It's observations of the man who is president from a non-political perspective.
Clearly gaining some insight to the man in the office is of no interest to you unless it divulges that he eats the babies of capitalists for lunch, studies Marx by candlelight after hours, has a Kenyan birth certificate, and speaks weekly with Jane Fonda.
I never said it didn't give me insights. I said the insights are slanted in favor of the man. If Lewis is a fan of the dude, what makes you think he isn't writing in a slanted manner? You seem to think that Will couldn't write objectively because of his right leaning opinions. But somehow, I'm supposed to believe that Lewis can set aside his like for Obama and present "insights" that are accurate depictions of what the man is really like. The piece doesn't come off that way at all, but seems quite fawning. It's written as if he didn't need to spend any time with Obama at all to provide such "insights".
What a ridiculous conversation! I give you credit for reading the article. If you can find nothing positive about it, so be it. Clearly there is no limit to your disdain for the man who is president.
More clearly, there is no reason to assume the article means anything other than Lewis is almost Chris Matthews-like for Obama. I've no doubt you also feel a tingle up your leg over the guy. But a little marketing does little to erase what is so commonly known about the guy.
I've met more than one old guy who claims to have had contact with Al Capone. To them he seemed like a great guy. But what is known about Capone says otherwise. It is the same here. Lewis spends a few days with the prez, who understands he must be on his best behavior and I'm to forget all that is already known about him? Please.
You want something positive about the article? It was well written. How's that? My "disdain" for Obama is indeed limited by what I do know about him. I know he supports abortion "rights" for any reason at any time. That's disdainful. I know he pretends to have changed his mind about homosexual marriage. That's disdainful (I'll let you decide if by that I mean his changing his mind is disdainful, or that he expects us to believe he ever really gave a crap about the issue at all.) I know he has his head up his ass regarding military superiority (in so many ways), foreign affairs and mostly deeply on the economy.
But I'll tell you the truth: I have far more disdain for those who voted for the guy, and even more for those who believe he's worth a second vote now.
There is no limit to my disdain for the person who is president
What a swell bunch of folks!
Thanks, Jim. It's about time you finally recognize our noble natures.
However, you still haven't given a reason why you suggested we read the article and why you would express disappointment by our not being impressed by it. It's a worthless article on the whole, providing nothing that suggests that he's worthy of the job. It is no more than one guy (Lewis) being enamored with the president. It's meaningless.
Noble natures? I spit my coffee all over my desk.
you still haven't given a reason why you suggested we read the article
Actually, I did on 9/20/2012 at 5:16PM.
why you would express disappointment by our not being impressed by it.
I never had any expectation that you would be impressed. Your reaction was pretty much what I expected, but there was always that slightest of possibilities that I would be surprised.
It's meaningless.
To you, apparently. To many people it was an interesting piece. But you have your opinion, and just like assholes (Traitor Dick may raise his hand here), everyone has one.
So we're not a swell bunch of folks? Which is it?
So you wanted us to read it because you thought we might find it interesting. I see. It wasn't. We've already got Chris Matthews for that point of view of man. We don't need another.
The expression is, "Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one, but some stink more than others." Those would be yours.
Madonna Louise Ciccone, whom I'm told is some fabulous International Champion Pole Dancer (Who knew they even had such a thing?) has publicly stated that President O'BamaStrippers is a "black Muslim" and that that's a good thing, and that he is tirelessly working for Gay Rights. Sounds kind of authoritative to me...Strippers are generally known to be fairly astute about these things.
Please excuse the first "Strippers" above--that was one of those famous MacBook Air word jumps. We all know Obama is not a stripper-- just a serial liar.
Mark is really gone this time.. for sure..
Post a Comment