If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KSDK St. Louis)   GOP: States need more rights. Obama: Okay, here's some more states rights. GOP: How dare you usurp states' rights like this   (ksdk.com) divider line 236
    More: Asinine, GOP, obama, house ways and means committee, cash assistance, work rule, R-Utah, Robert Rector, Orrin Hatch  
•       •       •

5681 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-17 04:26:40 PM  
A guy in the WND comments gave a link to watch so you don't have to 'give them your email'. So, I wanted to see how their news is produced.

abc15.com

The arizona news people look exactly like you would think. They also have Trisha Takanawa on site to provide some hard hitting investigative journalism.

/me love you long time ziggy stardust
 
2012-07-17 04:27:44 PM  
Ever get the eerie feeling Obama reads Fark? I've noticed that he tends to say and do certain things within a week or a few days of it being mentioned here.
 
2012-07-17 04:28:20 PM  
coeyagi

colon_pow: coeyagi: sprawl15: coeyagi: PanicMan: Can we get some reasonable conservatives around here? I know of about 3 that are regular posters.

The sheer ammount of derp-filled idiots are drowning out reasonable duscusion. It's boring.

One doesn't even show up any more. One is a reasonable slightly libertarian Giants fan. I can't think of a third.

I can think of two, Hubie and Weaver.

Weaver? RINO!

got that right. he's the pivot man in every lib circle jerk.

Don't be mad bro, you're still pivot man for the bridge dwelling elite of winterwhile, tenpoundsofderp and karnal.



Keep me out of your fantasies, Andy Pandy.
 
2012-07-17 04:28:57 PM  
Republicans hate it because it might actually improve the government.
 
2012-07-17 04:31:13 PM  

LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.


OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.
 
2012-07-17 04:33:54 PM  

I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.


How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.
 
2012-07-17 04:34:31 PM  

I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.


Is it your contention that the Obama administration is going to force states to submit plans so they can reject them unless they're "more liberal?" Or is it your contention that the states really really want to have the federal government dictate to them how they must implement things?

Pick some derp and stick to it, dude. You're confusing things.
 
2012-07-17 04:39:45 PM  

I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: Who said I was up in arms about this policy position. I am stating that you're original post is full of crap, which it is. The states are not managing their own welfare programs unless they agree with the administration on the correct welfare programs for the state.

It's funny how you never explained how this is worse than the current system, where they can't change anything even if they want to.

Why would I explain something that I never stated?

The problem is that you never stated it. Wouldn't it be refreshing if you guys weren't always trying to make us chase red herrings rather than discuss actual policy? I mean, the world would f*cking end over such an impossible event, but we'd be refreshed.

The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.


So rather than talk about the policies of his you do like or can stand (which I assume is a lot, he does do a lot of Bush-y / Reagan-y things but you're an insufferable partisan shill so you ignore that fact), if indeed that's the case, you'd rather point out semantics than the core of the issue.

Glad we got that sorted out. Now, continue talking about how you're being mistreated / mischaracterized here.
 
2012-07-17 04:46:16 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: FTFA: "'The Obama administration is proposing to let states effectively eliminate (the work requirement),' said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich."

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 400x400]
Annnnnnd, stopped reading right there.

/Seriously, WTF?


If you're in a place where there are some jobs for unskilled workers - say, Texas, which is adding a lot of minimum wage jobs - then it makes sense to have the requirement. Some other places, it might not.


More likely, it makes sense to drop it for certain people. If someone is a single parent with one or more small children, the cost of daycare is more than that person will make. Personally, I'd like to see us create free/subsidized day care, and that alone would employ a lot of people (including the single parent on welfare - after all we're putting them to work taking care of kids, which they already do). But that would be socialism, and Supply Side Jesus would hate that.

But we don't. So instead of plowing through a lot of expensive paperwork to explain why so-and-so can't work, we just do the sensible thing and say: here are some guidelines that exempt you from the requirement.
 
2012-07-17 04:47:40 PM  

karnal: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]


Face from the A-team doesn't pay any taxes, they are totally off the grid.
 
2012-07-17 04:54:01 PM  
randomjsa:
Myth: Obama is doing this to give states more control.

Reality: Obama is doing this to get more people on welfare.


Citation:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-17 05:01:00 PM  

LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.



You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?
 
2012-07-17 05:04:17 PM  

I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?


Maybe? But they don't have to apply at all. So there's no pressure.
 
2012-07-17 05:09:23 PM  
This pretty much proves conclusively that the only real conservative value is racism. All other purportedly "conservative" values are subordinate to that of an America built on racial hierarchy.
 
2012-07-17 05:09:27 PM  

I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?


Well, there were no death panels in Obamacare, but you guys kept f*cking that chicken until half the country believed it (and still does). But go on.... speculate until you're green in the face. Anne Coulter thinks it's sexy.
 
2012-07-17 05:10:20 PM  

LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?

Maybe? But they don't have to apply at all. So there's no pressure.


So you're saying that if states want to change their welfare plan and the administration adds stipulations there will be no pressure to enact those stipulations in order to be approved? I mean, that is just what I think will happen so there isn't really any way of know how it will go down but the federal government is notorious for doing that sort of thing.
 
2012-07-17 05:11:57 PM  

I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?

Maybe? But they don't have to apply at all. So there's no pressure.

So you're saying that if states want to change their welfare plan and the administration adds stipulations there will be no pressure to enact those stipulations in order to be approved? I mean, that is just what I think will happen so there isn't really any way of know how it will go down but the federal government is notorious for doing that sort of thing.


Right now they CAN NOT change it. They are being given the opportunity to change it, if they can convince the people CURRENTLY IN CHARGE to accept their changes. I just don't see how this is even hard for you to understand. They don't have to do it. If they want to, there are rules. How is this unusual?
 
2012-07-17 05:13:07 PM  

coeyagi: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?

Well, there were no death panels in Obamacare, but you guys kept f*cking that chicken until half the country believed it (and still does). But go on.... speculate until you're green in the face. Anne Coulter thinks it's sexy.


Seriously, what is wrong with you? I am actually a pretty moderate conservative. You seem to think I am some sort of tea party fundie.
 
2012-07-17 05:19:40 PM  

LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?

Maybe? But they don't have to apply at all. So there's no pressure.

So you're saying that if states want to change their welfare plan and the administration adds stipulations there will be no pressure to enact those stipulations in order to be approved? I mean, that is just what I think will happen so there isn't really any way of know how it will go down but the federal government is notorious for doing that sort of thing.

Right now they CAN NOT change it. They are being given the opportunity to change it, if they can convince the people CURRENTLY IN CHARGE to accept their changes. I just don't see how this is even hard for you to understand. They don't have to do it. If they want to, there are rules. How is this unusual?


Let me make this clear. I know states don't have to do anything at all.

I do want to know if you miss the part where I said "If"? I am not saying Obama is going to force states to change it. I am saying that IF a state did want to change it, there is going to be pressure from the administration to enact anything they propose in order to be approved for a waiver. That is where the pressure in my original post came from.
 
2012-07-17 05:46:15 PM  
Well *if* Obama was a Martian he might want to serve us all for dinner to his Martian cronies!

You can live in the imaginary world inside your head all you like, but you need to know that you're the only one in there.
 
2012-07-17 05:50:14 PM  

Rent Party: Well *if* Obama was a Martian he might want to serve us all for dinner to his Martian cronies!

You can live in the imaginary world inside your head all you like, but you need to know that you're the only one in there.


Youre right the federal government has never done anything like that in the past or, very very recently.
 
2012-07-17 05:57:36 PM  

I alone am best: Rent Party: Well *if* Obama was a Martian he might want to serve us all for dinner to his Martian cronies!

You can live in the imaginary world inside your head all you like, but you need to know that you're the only one in there.

Youre right the federal government has never done anything like that in the past or, very very recently.


Right now, in reality, as opposed to ParanoidDelusionLand in your fevered imagination, as a result of Republican "states rights" policy, the states have absolutely *no* recourse or options. As a result of this power grabbing liberal Kenyan socialist negro, the states will have an avenue to implement their own plans.

Also, you're a moron.
 
2012-07-17 06:19:42 PM  
President Obama should sign an executive order which expands gun owner's rights in a small way which makes common sense. That would really troll the right.
 
2012-07-17 06:25:00 PM  

EnviroDude: if only there were a way that the President and Democrats could create an environment that would create jobs to help those on welfare that want to work find jobs.

if only


Maybe he could make the economic crash that happened during the Bush administration not happen retroactively.
 
2012-07-17 06:35:11 PM  

hubiestubert: blackhalo: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, agreed states need better ways to get welfare recipients into "activities that promote self-sufficiency." Utah is one of the states seeking changes.

He said the administration went around Congress by acting alone.

Another instance in which the Republicans are for something until Obama agrees, at which point it is evil. Cf. DREAM Act (looking at you, Hatch).

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO AGREE TO THIS! MOM! OBAMA'S NOT PLAYIN' RIGHT!


So wait.

Obama gave them something they wanted and now they're mad because he didn't do it the WAY they wanted him to? They got what they wanted and they're STILL UPSET BECAUSE OBAMA did it???

Mother of god.
 
2012-07-17 06:38:43 PM  

Rent Party: I alone am best: Rent Party: Well *if* Obama was a Martian he might want to serve us all for dinner to his Martian cronies!

You can live in the imaginary world inside your head all you like, but you need to know that you're the only one in there.

Youre right the federal government has never done anything like that in the past or, very very recently.

Right now, in reality, as opposed to ParanoidDelusionLand in your fevered imagination, as a result of Republican "states rights" policy, the states have absolutely *no* recourse or options. As a result of this power grabbing liberal Kenyan socialist negro, the states will have an avenue to implement their own plans.

Also, you're a moron.


I know words are hard to understand and everything. Why don't you go back and try real hard to read my posts. Get back to me when you understand it, or you can converse with someone for more than three posts without going full retard.
 
2012-07-17 07:13:48 PM  
Late, but obligatory:

i1015.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-17 07:27:21 PM  
Obama needs to let states control their own rules for welfare. Anything that cuts-off republican-voting welfare queens in red states and prevents them from being able to vote, the better.
 
2012-07-17 07:30:09 PM  

vernonFL: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 450x335]

Obama will have us all on welfare and food stamps and living in pubic housing projects. Its the Chicago way.


Holy crap!

...The Loop in Chicago sure has changed a lot since the 1970's.
 
2012-07-17 08:01:53 PM  
"The president's action is completely misdirected," Romney said. "Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

As if Mitt ever did an honest day's work in his life...
 
2012-07-17 09:02:04 PM  

MikeMc: "The president's action is completely misdirected," Romney said. "Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

As if Mitt ever did an honest a day's work in his life...


FTFY. Even criminals work harder than Mittens ever did.
 
2012-07-17 09:12:41 PM  

I alone am best: coeyagi: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: LasersHurt: I alone am best: The problem isn't that I never stated it, the problem is that you assume that because I don't like Obama I absolutely loath anything he does.

This is still not a direct comment on this issue.

OK then. I think this is just a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on the states as any waiver needs to be vetted through the Obama administration. It is going to turn out to be largely ineffectual because the Obama admin is not going to approve anything that is anything less than more liberal with an upcoming election and most states facing a budget crisis would rather stick to the current federal guidelines. It isn't going to do anything to help anyone.

How is there any pressure, at all? That's like saying a donut shop opening up in your neighborhood is pressure to get donuts. If you don't want donuts, don't go to the donut store.


You don't think there will be stipulations when states try and apply for a waiver?

Well, there were no death panels in Obamacare, but you guys kept f*cking that chicken until half the country believed it (and still does). But go on.... speculate until you're green in the face. Anne Coulter thinks it's sexy.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? I am actually a pretty moderate conservative. You seem to think I am some sort of tea party fundie.


If you are moderate then you'll accept that this is better than it was yesterday. But you immediately attacked Obama on semantics. I have NEVER seen you say anything positive about Obama. Obama is a centrist. You are a moderate conservative. The likelihood that you actually don't support anything Obama supports is statistically next to zero given that fact. Yet, you attack him like a tea party fundie hack. So, go on, climb back up on that cross that you built and nail yourself there with the nails that you forged.
 
2012-07-17 09:25:28 PM  

EnviroDude: if only there were a way that the President and Democrats could create an environment that would create jobs to help those on welfare that want to work find jobs.

if only


There are people on welfare who don't want to work?

/Please. Enlighten me. Please.
 
2012-07-17 09:34:18 PM  

PsiChick: EnviroDude: if only there were a way that the President and Democrats could create an environment that would create jobs to help those on welfare that want to work find jobs.

if only

There are people on welfare who don't want to work?

/Please. Enlighten me. Please.


Oh, come on. Not only do people on welfare a) not work, and b) don't want to work, they c) sit around all day in BarcaLoungers watching cable movies on their flat-screen TVs and eating bon-bons. It's a cushy life, living on $600 a month and food stamps, I'm telling you! I'm surprised ANYBODY would want to work!
 
2012-07-18 05:44:52 AM  

I alone am best: Rent Party: I alone am best: Rent Party: Well *if* Obama was a Martian he might want to serve us all for dinner to his Martian cronies!

You can live in the imaginary world inside your head all you like, but you need to know that you're the only one in there.

Youre right the federal government has never done anything like that in the past or, very very recently.

Right now, in reality, as opposed to ParanoidDelusionLand in your fevered imagination, as a result of Republican "states rights" policy, the states have absolutely *no* recourse or options. As a result of this power grabbing liberal Kenyan socialist negro, the states will have an avenue to implement their own plans.

Also, you're a moron.

I know words are hard to understand and everything. Why don't you go back and try real hard to read my posts. Get back to me when you understand it, or you can converse with someone for more than three posts without going full retard.


I'd have to say that full retarded is failing to grasp Boolean logic at a ninth grade level, but that's just me. Seriously, states are given a new option by this rule. It may not be as open ended as you would like, but the fact is that states can now take actions that they previously could not take.
/Or are you one of those farkers who turns down a 1% raise because it's not big enough?
 
2012-07-18 10:52:57 PM  
I'm sure I'd be all for state's rights if I didn't live in Utah. Thank god for the federal government! It's about the only thing keeping this shiathole at least somewhat resembling the rest of the US.
 
Displayed 36 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report