The Goat Pen

Toemeesleather wrote:Obammer's got nothin' to run on, he needs all the media hype/help he can get....and the folks like tick....well, they swallow.

Is that how it is now, toe. I "swallow?"

That doesn't sound like you...I'm thinking you're still butt-hurt over Hokie-hokie-hi!!. That's surely it.

Please post the fact checkers results for this...


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

bluetick wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:Obammer's got nothin' to run on, he needs all the media hype/help he can get....and the folks like tick....well, they swallow.

Is that how it is now, toe. I "swallow?"

That's what Obammer expects, and seems to be gettin'....attack, attack, attack, tear down cause we got nuttin'.

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:An outstanding choice, IMHO. Ryan is the best spokesman for fiscal sanity the Republicans have. With this pick, I may vote for Thurston Howell III after all.

I get it. Your momentary euphoria overrode your natural instincts with respect to politicians.

No sense compounding that small felony, however.

Along these lines, here's an article that I (as a Libertarian leaning voter) happen to agree with:

3 Ways Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans Can Woo Libertarian Voters

1. Get serious about cutting spending. If Romney wants to carry libertarians, he needs to start talking about cutting the actual year-over-year totals that taxpayers shell out for big-ticket items such as Social Security, Medicare, and defense.
2. Get serious about bringing home the troops. Libertarians believe in a strong national defense but, like the majority of Americans, they don’t believe that endless wars like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan will either make us safer at home or bring peace to foreign lands.
3. Get serious about staying out of personal lives. Nobody’s asking for lifestyle approval, they just want to make sure Romney and the Republicans will respect our right to be left alone.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/30/3-way ... ublicans-c

Toemeesleather wrote:Please post the fact checkers results for this...


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

This claim from Hapless Harry Reid has already been disqualified. Romney says it's untrue.

Toemeesleather wrote:

bluetick wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:Obammer's got nothin' to run on, he needs all the media hype/help he can get....and the folks like tick....well, they swallow.

Is that how it is now, toe. I "swallow?"

That's what Obammer expects, and seems to be gettin'....attack, attack, attack, tear down cause we got nuttin'.

I see massive attacks on both sides, even if you can't. I see both sides pointing to their successes (although Romney runs from one of his that bears his name). This election is no-holds-barred and cutthroat because both candidates have serious flaws that the opposition can't seem to highlite fast enough. And in the process some of this "highliting" becomes suspect itself..

That's what Obammer expects, and seems to be gettin'....attack, attack, attack, tear down cause we got nuttin'.[/quote]

I see massive attacks on both sides, even if you can't. I see both sides pointing to their successes (although Romney runs from one of his that bears his name). This election is no-holds-barred and cutthroat because both candidates have serious flaws that the opposition can't seem to highlite fast enough. And in the process some of this "highliting" becomes suspect itself..


Yet another empty answer...bring up some fictitious fact-checker that only works in one direction...no defense.

Professor Tiger wrote:
Along these lines, here's an article that I (as a Libertarian leaning voter) happen to agree with:

3 Ways Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans Can Woo Libertarian Voters

1. Get serious about cutting spending. If Romney wants to carry libertarians, he needs to start talking about cutting the actual year-over-year totals that taxpayers shell out for big-ticket items such as Social Security, Medicare, and defense.
2. Get serious about bringing home the troops. Libertarians believe in a strong national defense but, like the majority of Americans, they don’t believe that endless wars like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan will either make us safer at home or bring peace to foreign lands.
3. Get serious about staying out of personal lives. Nobody’s asking for lifestyle approval, they just want to make sure Romney and the Republicans will respect our right to be left alone.

Two and three, the Rs came up short even before the Tea Party began it's takeover, so you can toss those.

Re: One - you know the Rs would cut off their johnson before they would cut defense. They will more than overcompensate for Medicare, though.

Toemeesleather wrote:That's what Obammer expects, and seems to be gettin'....attack, attack, attack, tear down cause we got nuttin'.

I see massive attacks on both sides, even if you can't. I see both sides pointing to their successes (although Romney runs from one of his that bears his name). This election is no-holds-barred and cutthroat because both candidates have serious flaws that the opposition can't seem to highlite fast enough. And in the process some of this "highliting" becomes suspect itself..


Yet another empty answer...bring up some fictitious fact-checker that only works in one direction...no defense.[/quote]

FactCheck.org and PolitiFact are not fictitious. Tell me you are just playing at being a fuckwit..

FactCheck.org and PolitiFact are not fictitious. Tell me you are just playing at being a fuckwit..


Then post what they have about Reid's imagination friend, instead of your usual I'll throw'em off w/my comedy posts....oh wait, they only factcheck Ryan, right?

Factcheck.org Run by the Annenberg Foundation

To better understand the potentially conservative bias of the website --factcheck.org -- it is first worthwhile to examine who runs it -- namely the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation is one of the twelve largest organizations in the US operating under a 3 billion dollar grant given by Walter Annenberg.

Examining the Foundation itself, it is worthwhile to take a look at it's founder Walter Annenberg. Born in 1908, Annenberg was raised by his conservative father who resourcefully scratched together a media empire by the name of Triangle Publications. Walter later inherited Triangle and used it's various publications to vitriolically attack a number of liberal politicians. Annenberg's efforts endeared him to a number of conservative politicians including Richard Nixon, who appointed him as ambassador of England, and was close friends to Ronald Reagan whom he first introduced to Margaret Thatcher. While in England

LMAO

FactCheck.org: Ryan's VP Spin

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

LMAO pt. deux

Like many foundations..Carnegie/Rockefeller/Morgan...start out conservative and change w/subsequent generations....so too is Tick's current masturbating....statements like this are easily found..


Factcheck is a similar resource, but appears to have a more fact-based approach. It too is owned by a now liberal group, the Annenberg Foundation. Originally, founder Walter Annenberg was a conservative Reagan backing Republican. The family's views have changed dramatically over the years...

Annenburg staff, read for yerself.....


http://www.factcheck.org/about/

Walter Annenberg, toe. Nixon and Reagan's bff.

Yet you claim the 'newly-liberal' Annenberg Foundation supports Obama by...making him out to be a liar?

FactCheck.org: Obama's 'Outsourcer' Overreach

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-out ... JU.twitter

SUMMARY

Obama accuses Romney in a series of TV ads of being a "corporate raider" who "shipped jobs to China and Mexico," asking if voters want to elect an "outsourcer in chief." But some of the claims are untrue, and others are thinly supported.

LMAO tres ..not as funny as the other two, though. heh

Hey tick,

Is the first sentence of the Democrats view of their history true or false? I want to hear from the "fact checkers"

http://www.democrats.org/about/our_history

The funny thing is, if you read all of the factcheck.org articles against oprama you would swear Walter was alive and well and cracking the whip better than ever. "Obama Claims of Romney Tax Avoidence Misleading' was another dandy. Right-wingers were touting that one all over the place, even Larry efing Elder. They loved them some factcheck.org back last spring, ya see.

Such is the crux of the whole liberal/ 9:1 media conspiracy thought process. Right-wingers brook no sass from any journalist or news organization. You are either '100% for us or you're against us' - any discouraging word automatically puts you in the enemy camp. And now that Rupert Murdock has been slapped down by the UK courts, even Fox is starting to report things that some righties can't abide. Soon the teapartiers will start looking at Fox the same way they view Romney...thru their fingers, squinting...trying to blur whut ain't quite right.

sardis wrote:Hey tick,

Is the first sentence of the Democrats view of their history true or false? I want to hear from the "fact checkers"

http://www.democrats.org/about/our_history

It all started with people who opposed slavery.

j/k

That's actually the first line of GOP.com's history page. Good stuff all the way thru...

bluetick wrote:

sardis wrote:Hey tick,

Is the first sentence of the Democrats view of their history true or false? I want to hear from the "fact checkers"

http://www.democrats.org/about/our_history

It all started with people who opposed slavery.

j/k

That's actually the first line of GOP.com's history page. Good stuff all the way thru...

Well, actually, that is the truth...You should read up on it sometime.

So, tick, oh championer of the truth, which is a true saying. We so desperately need your discernment...

The opening lines of the Democratic Party's history?

"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights."

Or the opening lines of the Republican Party's history?

"It all started with people who opposed slavery..."

Heh - on their face and totally devoid of context, I give the nod to the short and benign GOP sentence. With a little adjustment they can both hit the mark, however.

To fix each, I would start the dem one with "Off and on for more than 200 years".

The other, I'd finish with "and it's ending with no semblance of Lincoln nor any black appreciation whatsoever."

Thanks, sardis - that was fun.