The Goat Pen

Prove it

Puter-

After that debate performance I would expect Romney to close the gap across the board but will either level off or recede in places. Especially if Obama comes out swinging in the second round. I would need to see poll after pool showing Romney with a lead in Ohio to believe it. Obama has been leading here in nearly every poll released over the past year.

Please move.

bluetick wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:
Anybody that will blatantly tell a bald faced lie about his own mother (or was it grandmother) about health insurance in order to just further his agenda is dishonest.

You admittedly don't know what you're talking about, so no sense arguing this one.

Big Orange Junky wrote:
He sent out letters telling employers to VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and withold layoff notices AND HE promised TAXPAYER MONEY TO FIGHT THE LAWSUITS FOR VIOLATING THE LAW. That's about as dishonest as you can get

Nothing at all dishonest about it. The administration doesn't want layoff notices to go out for the fact that sequestration may not occur...or if it does, layoffs will be sufficiently delayed to allow for pinkslips to come later. The law applying to the 60-day notice calls for a known termination date, not a speculative one. Pesky details for sure...but you need to read beyond the fox or drudge headlines. Nothing was hidden, no lies were told, and no FEDERAL LAW WAS VIOLATED. heh

He was saying she had no "health insurance" and fought with the insurance company etc. In reality she was FULLY INSURED the entire time. It was disability insurance she was fighting with, not health insurance but that's not what he said. He lied about his family members struggle with cancer to further his agenda.

As for the law, the law is clear it says the notices have to go out for POTENTIAL layoffs. That's why the companies were going to do it and why the administration rushed to stop it. If it didn't violate federal law why promise taxpayer money for the lawsuits for not giving enough notice?... That's what I thought. It is a violation of the law.

My sense is the debate cost Obama his margin of error. He can't survive another performance like that. I'm sure he knows that, and won't be as listless and unprepared as he was the first time.

Big Orange Junky wrote:
As for the law, the law is clear it says the notices have to go out for POTENTIAL layoffs.

lol Nice try "with the law is clear." And you put potential in caps...so it HAS to be there, right?

The law - verbatim - from the DoL WARN Regulation of Employee Notice

Notification

A Worker And Retraining Notification (WARN) notice is required when a business of more than 100 fulltime workers (not counting workers with less than six months on the job or employees who work less than a 20 hour week on average) is laying off at least 50 people at a single place of employment (see glossary and FAQs), or who employs 100 or more workers who work an average of 4,000 hours a week, and is a private for-profit business, private non-profit organization, or quasi-public entity separately organized from regular government.

IS laying off. Not is POTENTIALLY laying off.

You can't steamroll that bullshit in here, BOJ. Shame on you.

They are, the cuts are scheduled to take effect. As of right now those people are laid off Jan 1. Those notices are required to go out.

If they were not required to go out then the they wouldn't have started to send them.

Furthermore if it wasn't illegal for them not to send them the administration wouldn't have volunteered to pay them taxpayer money to pay for their violations.

Potential may have been a little off as the best word, maybe I should have said "planned". That's what the offical gubment site says, planned layoffs, whether they are expected to happen, whether or not they are expected to be permanant. Maybe I should have said "expected" instead of "potential". As you can see lots of expected, planned, etc in the language.

Anyway here's the link. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm

Pretty clear if you are expecting to lay folks off and you fit that criteria those notices are required to go out. As it stands they are expected to lay them off and they will be violating federal law if they don't send them out.

That's OK though Obama is gonna pay them taxpayer money to fight the lawsuits for violating the law.

hedge wrote:Wow, funny how the activity in this shithole has picked up the last few days. Hadn't seen most of the regulars around here for weeks and now they suddenly are all back, full of piss and vinegar. Way to jump back on the bandwagon as soon as "your" guy has the first blip of positive traction in months. LMAO. Yep, Romney has some damn staunch supporters out there...

Oh you don't give a fuck. Stop your bitchin or I'm going to take away your tampons.

That's fine, BOJ. Keep debating with yourself whether you should have said POTENTIAL or not. Let us know how it comes out. heh

Big Orange Junky wrote:
As for the law, the law is clear it says the notices have to go out for POTENTIAL layoffs.

FALSE

Romney with 4 point lead....

http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads- ... itics.html

innocentbystander wrote:Romney with 4 point lead....

http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads- ... itics.html

And yet that poll still shows Obama with a hefty EC win . . .

Johnette's Daddy wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:Romney with 4 point lead....

http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads- ... itics.html

And yet that poll still shows Obama with a hefty EC win . . .

The lead may just reflect a huge swing of independant voters to favor Romney in the states that Romney was already going to win.

Romney must win Florida, NC, Ohio, Colorado, NH, and Indiana. I think he has a good shot at all six, but the only way he wins them all is if he decisively kicks the President's ass in the remaining two debates.

Romney doesn't have to worry about Paul Ryan this week. He is going to give VP Biden a public colonoscopy.

innocentbystander wrote:

Johnette's Daddy wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:Romney with 4 point lead....

http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads- ... itics.html

And yet that poll still shows Obama with a hefty EC win . . .

The lead may just reflect a huge swing of independant voters to favor Romney in the states that Romney was already going to win.

Romney must win Florida, NC, Ohio, Colorado, NH, and Indiana. I think he has a good shot at all six, but the only way he wins them all is if he decisively kicks the President's ass in the remaining two debates.

Romney doesn't have to worry about Paul Ryan this week. He is going to give VP Biden a public colonoscopy.

Like Sarah Palin did?

Obama's strategy:

Call Mitt a liar at every turn.

That is just too rich. LMFGDAO.

Obama without his teleprompter is like Linus without his blankie...

Johnette's Daddy wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:The lead may just reflect a huge swing of independant voters to favor Romney in the states that Romney was already going to win.

Romney must win Florida, NC, Ohio, Colorado, NH, and Indiana. I think he has a good shot at all six, but the only way he wins them all is if he decisively kicks the President's ass in the remaining two debates.

Romney doesn't have to worry about Paul Ryan this week. He is going to give VP Biden a public colonoscopy.

Like Sarah Palin did?

You don't honestly believe that the GOP would fuck up and repeat that disaster from four years ago do you? Please tell me you have more respect for the GOP and their ability to learn from their mistakes, than that.

Actually, I don't...

Tick and BOJ are arguing semantics.

The law is clear that if layoffs or plant closings occur that would have triggered a WARN notification you better have issued the WARN notification. Otherwise you are liable.

So with something as clear cut and foreseeable as the cuts coming Jan 1st 2013 any company affected is going to send out the notices to cover their ass. This was in process when the admin intervened and told the companies involved that they would cover their liability.

Why would they offer to cover their liability costs if there was no requirement to issue a WARN notice in the first place? C'mon tick.

innocentbystander wrote:

Johnette's Daddy wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:The lead may just reflect a huge swing of independant voters to favor Romney in the states that Romney was already going to win.

Romney must win Florida, NC, Ohio, Colorado, NH, and Indiana. I think he has a good shot at all six, but the only way he wins them all is if he decisively kicks the President's ass in the remaining two debates.

Romney doesn't have to worry about Paul Ryan this week. He is going to give VP Biden a public colonoscopy.

Like Sarah Palin did?

You don't honestly believe that the GOP would fuck up and repeat that disaster from four years ago do you? Please tell me you have more respect for the GOP and their ability to learn from their mistakes, than that.

Umm, nothing is for certain at these things. I mean, I knew Romney would hold his own against Oprama, but not many thought it would be the thumping that it was. Now, everyone is expecting Biden to be his typical doofus self, but Ryan likes to talk....too much and he could be the one to say something damaging.

bluetick wrote:That's fine, BOJ. Keep debating with yourself whether you should have said POTENTIAL or not. Let us know how it comes out. heh

Big Orange Junky wrote:
As for the law, the law is clear it says the notices have to go out for POTENTIAL layoffs.

FALSE

Again how much difference is there between "potential" and "expected" or "planned". Sure I could have used a different word.

How's this. Those employees are EXPECTED to be laid off Jan 1st. The law is clear, they are supposed to get their notices. If they do not they will be in clear violation of the law with the go ahead from the president.

Not much difference. I see the difference it the words and probably should have said "expected" instead of "potential".