VickisSmith
- 2375 comments
- 155 likes given
- 605 likes received
Bio not provided
Couldn't find the thread, of course. Saw your response to my earlier post.
Obama Criticized [by GOP] for Giving States More Flexibility
"After the Obama administration announced this week that it is opening up waivers to states from the work requirements contained in welfare reform,...
The Department of Health and Human Services believes the waivers would help parents “successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.” The department encouraged states to begin testing a range of new strategies, policies and procedures designed to improve employment outcomes for the needy.
The move gives states the ability to apply for waivers, but those applications would still have to be approved by the secretary.
Two states with GOP governors, Utah and Nevada, have submitted requests for a waiver so far, while three additional states, Connecticut, Minnesota, and California, have asked about the potential for waivers....
“This new flexibility will strengthen welfare reform rules and the effectiveness of state efforts to connect families with work. Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved,” George Sheldon, an assistant secretary at HHS, wrote in a blog. “Waivers that seek to avoid time limits or other federal restrictions on when assistance may be provided will not be approved.
"Romney Campaign: "We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Romney Keeps
Changing Rules On What's Allowed In Campaign Ads Posted: 08/28/2012 1:47 pm Mitt Romney's made it pretty clear that he intends to keep making hay over the trumped-up claim that the Obama administration is tacitly weakening welfare-to-work requirements by granting states waivers that facilitate greater "flexibility administering it so they can experiment with ways to improve the number of people making the jump from government assistance to jobs." <...>
But for all the effectiveness, Romney's attempts to paint Obama as a dismantler of welfare reform have famously run afoul of the fact-checking industry, to which Romney isn't paying a scintilla of mind. As Ben Smith reported earlier today, Romney ad strategist Ashley O'Connor told an ABC/Yahoo News forum today, "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." [Facts are facts]
In many ways, this dovetails with a previous pronouncement from the Romney campaign on what everyone should expect from it, in terms of ads. As "a top operative in Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign" told the New York Times' Thomas Edsall back in December 2011: “First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business…. Ads are agitprop…. Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context…. All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”
[Some Republican governors even had asked for the waivers- this was to allow for education to be able to become employed]
@patti is ticked And what do you think Russia and China would do- and N Korea if we did that or tried to?
@patti is ticked We cannot be isolationist in an era where a missile across the world can reach us in an "instant" and where we are not self-sustaining. We sold out America by giving tax breaks to companies moving to China (and elsewhere) where we get poisoned garbage instead of
decent quality goods. Have you seen the safety pins we find in the stores now? They are anything but safe. You have to order special ones on line. Costume jewelry- dangerous amounts of lead; children's toys? The same same thing. Food? Melamine I think was in milk (or some food). You know the cloth reusable bags to replace paper or plastic in supermarkets? Toxic. WHAT can we trust from China outside of herbs we've always gotten:?
We don't even keep customer service here anymore! Not only loss of jobs here but even though their English often is excellent the accents are so thick you can't understand them.
Trade among Canada, the US and Mexico can work all on our continent- done right it could solve a lot of the illegal immigration problems by making it possible for the Mexican people to survive. Of course corruption reigns there.
Olympic uniforms made in China...
@patti is ticked Why would you care about what Zionists want? Now you blamed Obama because he won't support Israel- do you remember your post? So if he won't support Israel's desire to attack Iran how can he be the Zionists' puppet?
The reason for that 2016 film is because they do NOT want Obama- they want Romney because HE will acquiesce to what they want- You think our friend of Schindler's List isn't a Zionist?
Bomb Iran- and think about who Iran's allies are- and religious zealots are all for starting THE war- the one that leads to Christ's return. I am no fear monger. . This is reality. Do some research. Sanctions and diplomacy don't exactly go hand-in-hand so maybe Obama isn't exactly pandering to Iran...
@patti is ticked Let's see: Rothschilds are Zionist and Obama is bought by them yet is not going along with Israel re its desire to attack Iran- he's trying to work things out diplomatically (even though he's already sanctioning them along with others). Guess that makes sense to some. No evidence of nuclear weapons there- think of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" baloney.
Obama is trying to prevent Armageddon- Russia, China, N Korea and others (as the right-wingers that are religious believe comprise the army that will usher in all the fun).
@patti is ticked China and Russia are the countries that would be involved in the Battle of Armageddon according to the reiigious right's ( active Christians iin general belief re Revelation.
So, if Israel goes to war with Iran and we go along, we have China, Russia, Pakistan, N Korea , and Syria allied with Iran.
Romney will back Israel. Obama wants to avert the catastrophe. He was originally against attacking Iraq as you know. This is reality whether you like him or not.
@patti is ticked Patti- you know my position on the socialist party and socialism in America. I made that perfectly clear.
And you thin k that isn't a fear-mongering film?
THINK about, for Heaven's sake! You know my background is Jewish and happen to have family in Israel - I haven't met them but some cousins know them.
There ar3e TWO people the Zionists did NOT want as president- one is Ross Perot and the other is Obama. You need to do some research of your own. You need to learn something about the Bk of Revelation. ALL "active" Christians believe in the 2nd Coming of Christ and the Battle of Armageddon; the gathering of Israel must take place before these happen. Most want it asap because a huge amount of them are "pre-tribbers"- they believe that they will be "caught up into the air " (the Rapture BEFORE all the hell breaks loose.
The religious non-Jewish Zionists or the ones who see the Biblical gathering of Israel will support what Israel wants, NOT because they love them, but because of biblical prophecy. The added impetus with Romney is that ours is a church that actually remonstrates in the Book of Mormon against anti-Jews. It praises them for giving the world the Bible (Old Testament).
Remember how you said Obama couldn't be trusted to support Israel? Have you changed your mind? He doesn't want WW3 and wants proper treatment of Palestinians and if Iran is attacked by Israel and we help what do you think is going to happen? Of course I want Israel to be safe, but you need to read up on what has gone on with the Palestinians. That's what fear produces.
@patti is ticked CORRECTION- Obama want to avert war with Iran.
‘2016: Obama’s America’ movie review By Michael O’Sullivan, Published: AUGUST 23, 6:48 PM ET Aa View desktop site
“I’m not trying to bash Obama in a crude way,” Dinesh D’Souza says in a TV news clip featured in the conservative writer and commentator’s new documentary “2016: Obama’s America.” It’s a comment recycled from one of D’Souza’s many media appearances in defense of his well-known, earlier attacks on the president, both in a controversial 2010 Forbes magazine cover story and two subsequent books, on which this film is based.
One thing can be said for “2016.” It’s anything but crude. The best infomercials rarely are.
And, make no mistake, D’Souza’s documentary profile of President Obama — which is like his earlier writing attempts to portray its subject as not just anti-capitalist but anti-American — is just that: a slick infomercial. As these things go, the movie seems destined to irritate the president’s supporters while mobilizing his detractors, even as it is doomed to win precious few converts. It’s a textbook example of preaching to the choir.
D’Souza, who narrates the film with the buttery smoothness of a therapist, intersperses talking-head interviews with footage of himself poring over Obama’s memoir “Dreams from My Father,” like a psychological detective, while visiting Indonesia, Hawaii and Kenya. As readers of the Forbes article know, the central thesis of “2016” is that Obama’s worldview — his “compass,” as D’Souza calls it — was largely shaped by the anti-colonialist, anti-white and anti-Christian politics of Obama’s supposedly radical Kenyan father. Never mind that Obama, growing up, spent precious little time with the man, who for most of his son’s early life was estranged from Obama’s mother. D’Souza trots out a professional psychologist to speculate on how the senior Obama’s absence reinforced his influence, rather than weakened it.
D’Souza makes it all sound almost plausible, but only if you’re predisposed to believe that Obama hates America. It’s bashing, all right, but with a velvet-gloved fist.
Why is the film called “2016”? D’Souza’s one-sided argument ultimately stoops to fear-mongering of the worst kind, stating in no uncertain terms that, if the president is reelected, the world four years from now will be darkened by the clouds of economic collapse, World War III (thanks to the wholesale renunciation of our nuclear superiority) and a terrifyingly ascendant new “United States of Islam” in the Middle East. These assertions are accompanied by footage of actual dark clouds and horror-movie music.
The real bogeyman isn’t Obama, who D’Souza acknowledges can come across as an appealing and charismatic leader. That honor is shared by several men D’Souza refers to as Obama’s “founding fathers,” in an unsubtle dig at the president’s patriotism. It’s a group that includes communist Frank Marshall Davis; former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers; academic Edward Said, whose views are described as anti-Zionist; liberal Harvard professor Roberto Unger; and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a proponent of so-called black liberation theology.
None of the names of these putative villains is new, which gives “2016” the air of a “Nightmare on Elm Street” sequel, pandering to the franchise’s hard-core fans, while boring everyone else.
2016: Obama’s America
Motive for movie: Obama doesn't want to avert war with Iran. Romney will be quite willing to go along with Israel.
@Indverif Strange- your response was in email but didn't show up on the site- usually when 2 or more are on at the same time it shows up on the screen,
And as to my maybe wanting everyone to be like me? Only in behaving decently and according the same courtesy on blogs as in person.
Cheebakind- our last conversation was quite different from this one. Now, why don't you find a single post of mine that suggested GZ is a cold-blooded monster?
@Indverif @MovingOn Indy, I have been going into live chatrooms since 1997, and after that, mainly only blogs were out there- every single one of them went down in flames. Either trolls or posters who had the same views bullied everyone else out. Most of the other glos/rooms, however, had some sort of moderation- or at least, robots that blocked vile language- sometimes both. Rowwdy said something vile to Wolf, but he didn't email the content of that one to me. Rowwdy has real anger issues and reminds me of a talking latrine at times.
"It's just the Net- and I can roll over anyone whom I choose" seems to be the motto of too many on the Web. Instead of productive interchange of ideas, we get the spewing of filth in attacks.
@Renaline @Indverif Ren, you are going to do what you're going to do but if you want to get points across about your position on racism and history, this is NOT the site to do it! These people are very opinionated and with one agenda. I am not talking about Indverif and the others in that corner.
They are burning up with anger about Zimmerman's being rallroaded, and have very strong opinions about crime in this country. They are coming from their own life experiences (and their friends) as you are with yours. Some of them feel anything goes- no attack is too vicious, no language too filthy. Sandra is NOT one of those, but you've seen the others. You have done this yourself (from what I read you initiated it but I wasn't there to see this) because you are immersed in your own frustration and anger.
I have no intentions of remaining on this poison blog. You can find others where if you keep your anger and frustration in check, you might make headway. Throwing acid at each other sickens the souls of both the ones doing it.
Ren, the bullies on these blogs drive most of the others out sooner or later; they then claim these blogs for their own. Personal attacks and filthy language are their weapons. This is never! right behavior.
@Indverif You'll notice there was no answer re Zionism and Obama v Romney.
Yesterday I was called a liar (by Rowwdy) because I said a Catholic priest named Father Dave said that NO abortions were permitted for ANY reason. Rowwdy also said I made up a fake priest- SO- I posted the name and phone number of the priest to Patti and what was her answer? That she knew some priests there already, That way there was no admission that Father Dave exists. Do you think there was an admission that I hadn't lied? Of course not.
He said I'm a proven liar- but has NEVER been able to post ANYTHING to suggest the same. He accuses over and over again a bunch of total ,malarkey and then the other 2 give him the "high 5" . Cake mentions about an email to her from him where he calls (me obviously) a "crazy b ----". She then says that she can't stand crazy b------.
BTW, Source and I discussed the possibility that they're all the same person but I pointed out that the attitudes of the 3 are alike and since Cake and I had emailed each other about our dogs there is no way Rowwdy would have done this- and Rowwdy is so abusive compared to Patti (even though she is no slouch in this either) "Patti" would never have said anything nice to me. She's made up for it, however- she "likes" every nasty thing he has said about me.
@Indverif @patti is ticked Indy, have you ever encountered as much vileness elsewhere as on GZ threads?