I remember the first lie Romney ever told when he first started lying, "...Seeing my father march with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

Okay, I'm not a fan of Romney but let's not be knocking his church. Having been one for 15 years, my experience is that Mormons are generally good people with strong values. How Romney chooses to interpret those values is a statement about him personally, not his church. Just sayin . . .

What lie? Heritage destroys the argument of the 20% rule. They are the only ones who looked at it. The 20% exit criteria increase is a joke meant to increase welfare roles. I dare you to read the following and respond to it:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/ending-work-for-welfare-bogus-measures-of-success

It also doesn't help that the Congressional Research Service already stated that the rules Sebelius/Obama have been put in place are not allowed under the Welfare Reform Act, so the lawsuits will stop it anyways.

From the above link, to show you how laughable the 20% work rate memo Sebelius is:

Employment exits are a poor predictor of changes in welfare caseloads, because change in caseload size is determined not by exits alone but by the number of exits compared to the number of entrances. After welfare reform, TANF caseloads fell in a manner never seen under AFDC, because the number of exits remained fairly high while the number of new enrollments in the program fell sharply. New enrollments, in turn, declined because individuals who did not really need welfare aid, when confronted by a work requirement, simply chose not to enroll in welfare in the first place.

The number of employment exits is thus meaningless as a method for assessing the TANF program. Employment exits is a sham measure of success that creates the impression that welfare dependence is being reduced when, in reality, the number of persons on welfare is constant or rising. (This was common practice prior to welfare reform. Governors routinely issued deceptive press releases trumpeting, “Last year, Governor X helped 10,000 families leave AFDC!” The press release would fail to mention that during the same period, 15,000 other families enrolled in the program.)

According to the Obama Administration’s preferred measure of welfare performance, the pre-reform AFDC system was a stunning success: Employment exits nearly doubled. By contrast, the post-reform TANF program was a failure because employment exits declined.

Now let's see what the New York Times said about the memo, and what Nevada requested:

[Nevada] asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/nyt-proves-romney-right-on-welfare/

What's that, states are asking for complete exemptions?!? OMG. Romney was right. The 20% rule Sebelius/Dems refer to didn't even come out until after Romney's ad.

So take your claims of it being a "lie" and do some actual research.

I dare you to read the following and respond to it

K

Last month, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) illegally overturned the work requirements that were the core of the welfare reform law of 1996, which required that a portion of the able-bodied recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program—the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program—be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid.

Well first and foremost Heritage is starting with a false premise. The 1996 law was not overturned and indeed the Executive Branch does not have the ability to do this. Nothing illegal was done here- this is a false claim made by the author via the false premise. So we're not on a good start here. We've already caught the Heritage Foundation in a lie.

The Obama Administration abolished this standard, declaring that in the future all state welfare bureaucracies and all TANF recipients could be exempted from the federal work requirements.

This is also a lie. The work requirement was not abolished and the Obama Administration did not declare that all future state welfare could be exempted from the work requirements. The memo- which constitutes as an executive order (remember an executive order isn't a law; it is a direction of how enforcement of currently existed law should be carried out under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Executive Branch)- states that HHS can give exemptions if they meet the strict criteria set forth within the memo on a case by case basis.

In order to be exempt from federal work participation standards, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated that a state would have to “move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.” This standard is vague, since states do not actually need to fulfill it but merely “demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year” after they are exempted from the old TANF work standards

So here the Heritage Foundation is immediately contradicting the claims it made in the first 2 paragraphs. They just said that the work requirement has been abolished; now they admit this is only if states can show a reasonable expectation up to one year after the TANF requirements have been waived. What they do not tell you is that if the state cannot produce the 20% results within that 1 year requirement the waiver will expire. There assertion that this is a "vague" requirement completely emits this and, indeed, ignores the specifics of the memo.

Thus, virtually every state in the U.S. will experience an increase in its employment exits by 20 percent “compared to the state’s past performance” as the economy moves from recession toward higher employment.

Nope. If the person is working then this means they are fulfilling the welfare to work requirement. The first contention Heritage is presenting here is that the program will do exactly what it's intended to do and this therefore is bad. This is not only paradoxical; it's also horrifically comical.

To be exempt from the TANF work requirements, the average state would need to raise its monthly employment exits from 1.5 percent of caseload to 1.8 percent. It seems likely that many states could meet this target simply by collecting or reporting more accurate data on their current exits from caseload. In other words, many states may obtain permanent exemptions from TANF work standards simply by marginal improvements in record keeping.

The argument here is that if a state is more accurate in it's reporting they will be given a yearly waiver in the work requirements. So we're supposed to believe that bad recording is a good thing? That when states intentionally misrepresent roles that this is OK? By the Heritage's own admission this would mean that the waiver signed by President Obama will decrease waste, fraud, and abuse at the state level. That's supposed to be bad? Okay I guess you can have that opinion. I strongly disagree. I'm all for waste, fraud, and abuse decreases.

According to Obama's new welfare system, the state can be fully exempt from the work standards written in the TANF law if it raises its employment exits from 600 per month to 720.

So the complaint here is that the program will, yet again, work exactly as intended by increasing the amount of people who are working. And getting more people to work is a bad thing? This is known as a red herring argument and it is a logical fallacy. In this case the Heritage Foundation is agreeing that the amount of people who would be working would increase, but that they don't like it cause the increase wouldn't be 100%. Nevermind the fact that by the Heritage's own argument they are stating that only 1.5% of people get a job who are on welfare (under current TANF standards) and this would increase the number to 1.8%. According to Heritage it's bad to remove the standard because it won't get everyone covered....but since not everyone is being covered currently and since the intention is to get more people employed (the complaint by Heritage, remember, is that they want more people employed) this means they are inadvertently agreeing with the Obama Administration's memo (even though this entire article has been written in an attempt to deride the memo).

Is anyone else having this problem where it's not letting you click back on your page to continue writing once you click off of it? That's why I'm having to post again and again cause it won't let me continue writing once I click off unless I click post comment and then click edit. Anyone else having this problem or know how to fix it?

What are the remaining 39,000 households supposed to do

A. begging the question fallacy and B. these remaining 39,000 are under current TANF records. That means that the Heritage is asserting that if the rules are changed (remember they admit already that it would get more people working) that the 39,000 who aren't getting work currently will then not be getting work in the future. But this change is supposed to be bad for the waivers and not bad for TANF overall. So far it seems the Heritage is arguing for why work for welfare is stupid in general.

You claim States (Nevada) asked for complete exemptions. Where does it say it was granted? I found this on the HHS letter:

The Secretary is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits.

Their next complaint really isn't an issue. They are complaining that when people stop receiving welfare because they've gotten employment more people go onto welfare who need the help. They are presuming that those people aren't in need of assistance, but because more people are getting off the program that they are now able to get their help thereby making the program more effective. So, in otherwords, by letting the states get more people employed this ensures that more people who need assistance will get assistance instead of falling off the charts. This goes back to keeping more accurate records. Apparently the Heritage Foundation has 2 complaints about Obama's welfare waivers: and those complaints are that he's making the program tooo damn efficient.

I should also point out that all of this is being asserted as being true without empirical evidence to back it up. For me that's the thing I love the most about the Heritage Foundation. They write articles (not academic studies) and then present them as if they are academic studies to dupe people who have never bothered to read an actual academic study. They then assert things to be true that they cannot prove or that they use fallacies (their favorite is begging the question) in order to justify as being real without having to actually support it with evidence.

I should ALSO add that the exemptions aren't permanent. That is another false accusation made without evidence by the Heritage Foundation. The exemptions are to go by a year to year basis and the caseloads (exists to entrances) are going to be the requirements necessary to keep getting another year waived.

Employment exits is a sham measure of success that creates the impression that welfare dependence is being reduced when, in reality, the number of persons on welfare is constant or rising

The section highlighted by Jesse is the section I was summarizing. What this is saying is that 10,000 people would go off welfare while 15,000 would go on. What Heritage is conveniently leaving out is need. Heritage is assuming that less people going on to welfare is good because Heritage is assuming that means those are people who could be working, but will be lazy if the government will give them a check. It's another false premise assertion based on complete belief and nothing empirical. Notice how the Heritage Foundation doesn't go out of it's way to assert the claims it assumes to be true. That's because it assumes those claims to be true without any evidence.

PS- Sorry for the 50 gagillion posts! Having problem with my Newsvine apparently

Jesse-Az,

I read your article.

Heritage claims "In the 10 years prior to welfare reform (1986–1995), the AFDC caseload increased by almost 30 percent, and the number of employment exits nearly doubled. In the 10 years after welfare reform (1997–2006), the TANF caseload fell by 50 percent while the number of caseload exits fell by 7 percent."

Lets analyze this. I pulled the following data points from their graphs they supplied to support these claims:

Year - People on welfare - Employment exits

1980 3.7 million 17000

1995 4.6 million 40000 <---just before reform

2009 1.9 million 25000

While it is true that the number of caseload exits fell after the reform, the percentage of exits increased. The fact that the number of caseload exits fell by 7 percent in the 10 years after the reform is statistically irrelevant, because the percentage of employment exits increased.

In 1995, right before the reform, the 40000 exits constituted .8% of the 4.6 million people on welfare. After the reform, with less than half as many people on welfare, the percentage of exits rose to 1.2%.

What does this mean? It means that contrary to rhetoric found on your heritage article, if states remove the work requirement they are likely to see both an increase in the number of people on welfare, and a decrease in the percentage of these people exiting the welfare program for employment reasons.

As a result, any state that simply accepts a waiver with no additional plan to move these people off welfare will not meet the 20% increase in employment exits requirement, and will quickly have their waiver revoked. All the other BS they talk about in the article is just that - BS. Their own statistics don't support their conclusion, and I honestly doubt they are so inept with statistics to think that their original analysis was valid without first normalizing the data. Its not surprising though, it takes a liar to defend a liar.

Ooooh fine static! Debunk it in one paragraph! I GET IT I GET IT! I need to not be so verbose! =P

Like I said their biggest complaint seems to be that giving the state based waivers, by their own logic, seems to improve this particular welfare program. In which case what Obama and the HHS are doing is actually good for the American people.

Once a liar ALWAYS a liar...what is your point?

No, in that so-called Mormon book, it says lying is best. And the more they deceive the better.

Mormontologists didn't steal that part of the Bible. They brought forth the idea of "Lyin' for the Lord," it's why they're such liars on everything else. Swallowed a lie, learned to lie about it, so lying comes naturally. Willard the Moron, er, I mean Mormontologist, can't help himself.

The way he goes about his mendacity does make me give a few moments of wondering why it is that the Lee Harvey Oswalds of this world never go after the right ones.

TCinLA, as much as I agree with most of your comments, the last sentence is a little over the line.

We can't be those people.

This shouldn't be an argument about who's religion is right or wrong; your religion is your personal business, and the theological thread is off topic. We didn't do this when JFK ran as the first catholic, and we shouldn't do this for Willard. That said, this is dog whistle politics, it is a lie, and Clinton burned Willard's feet in the fire last night. The real sin is that Willard's bankrupting of his asset raped companies, firing people, and putting people on safety net services for no reason. Wealth management and asset creation is not job creation, and is economics with no substance behind it. Willard doesn't get it. Willard believes he can make his opponent impotent, if he renders the opponents supporters incompetent. President Obama will silence the dog whistle tongiht.................

Actually, they did give JFK a hard time about his religion, saying that the pope would be in charge, instead of the president, re: policy. However, unlike today's radical right, JFK promised that religion had no place in policy. Now, all manner of conservatives, from evangelicals to catholics, have aligned with the right and want to legislate their "values" into laws for all of us. This was the devil's deal the neocons made to get enough votes from the rabid right so they could win. And of course, the other devil's deal was with the bigots, who will vote for anyone whiter than Obama, while holding their noses.
All that said, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

@ Lesman - What on this green Earth are you talking about "religion is your personal business?" Sure it *should* be, but in today's politics, it's not. It's apparent that not only are you a man - you're not paying any attention to GOP politics - which consistently have been pushing extremely Bible-based "moralistic" laws - ESPECIALLY against women. And maybe you weren't alive then (I don't know) but it was a huge deal that JFK was Catholic. You also might want to *not* compare financal greed and mismanagement with actual sexual assault. Not only does Willard not get it, neither do you.

So if religion is not an issue, a Muslim could run without any negative comments from Fox News.

Heather; I did not mean that he did not have a hard time, I meant he broke the glass ceiling, like Hillary and O; sorry I was not clear. Lilac, I agree with your point of view. I was talking about how I do it, and maybe about how it should be done. I understand the rights proselytizing. Final; I agree. If B Hussein O was muslim, what would be wrong with that? All 3 replies were very well thought out. The ideal is not necessary the norm, and we all four are working to better this world, with no hate.......

Deb and TCinLA are lying. The Mormon church does not teach that "lying for the lord" is OK.

Ah, but see, angry old white people have an amazing power of extrasensory perception that allows them to peer into the inner heart of the evil Kenyan usurper and his socialistic cohorts Using Only the Power of their Minds (such as they are, and what there are of them) and divine his true intentions. And because of this power, they know, know with absolute certainty and perfect clarity, that all of his intentions are the exact opposite of the words he uses and the action he actually takes or refrains from taking.

So, while it might be "true" for now, just this second, in some ticky-tacky hypertechnical sense, that the DHS says it will only grant waivers from existing regulations if there is a credible plan to increase employment and will revoke them if it doesn't work, the Angry Old White Email Network of Truth knows THE truth about this. And THE truth about this is that this is just the first step on a deliberately designed slippery slope that will inevitably lead to strapping young bucks buying free big screen TV's and t-bone steaks with welfare checks ATM cards despite not ever having done a lick of honest work their whole lives and sharing them with Cadillac-driving Welfare Queens over a couple of quarts of malt liquor.

And then, loyalty bought with the stolen sweat of hardworking white people and fortified with their free T-Bone steaks, these bucks and welfare queens will be bused in from out of state to vote multiple times so that yet another election can be stolen from We The People by the Others.

Once that's done, we'll finally see Obama unleash his secret plan to open the doors to an invasion of black helicopter flying foreign UN troops in blue beanies and helmets under cover of the sinister Agenda 21 plan to disarm Real Americans and contaminate our precious bodily fluids steal our freedums.

Its all perfectly clear. You people just need to Wake Up!(tm) and see the Real Truth that's right before your closed eyes. All of which is why We must Take Back the Country(tm) from . . . um . . . the ones from whom it must be taken back.

And they're not racists! You're the racist for calling them racist. So there.

Your ability to channel the mind of a Republican scares me a bit, Steve. But I do admire your writing style.

Haven't you been listening to Shooter? There's a section in the welfare reform bill (a section he can never seem to produce from the legislation itself) that says that you can't give waivers at all.

Granted what the HHS is doing isn't a waiver

Granted the passage people are claiming exists doesn't actually exist (at least not verbatim)

Granted there's a passage that does state that certain measures can be taken if states are able to show that with more leniency they will be able to increase or better achieve the work requirement goals

But, ya know, only a stupid liberal would take time out to read those details pfft

If only this mattered. Remember, there is no GOP war on anything, the President is stealing 716 billion dollars from Medicaid but the GOP is not, there is voter fraud everywhere, etc., etc. etc. Remember that GOP members speak on this saying "I know what it says, but we don't know how those sneaky Democrats will use this to let people get welfare without any work requirement."

This "gutting welfare argument" makes perfect sense to a republican party that says, at every turn, it's position is exactly the opposite of what it's policy practice indicates. Karl Rove method. Let's accuse them of being what we are; let's say their real policy is the exact opposite of what they are saying and what is on paper.

Cartoon; can't you leave the 'stupid' out of your post? Calling names is for grade school. I don't see anyone hauling the HHS into court, so your assertion appears to be wrong. Willard doesn't care if the assertion is correct; he is using a dog whistle to key up the base, like Ronnie's 'welfare queens,' and you know it. The funny thing is that the waiver's all went to Republican governors; if they went to Demo governors, you would really be calling names. Please try being a little more civil........

@lesman. Dude? #Snarkfail.

Amazing, Steve... you've managed to condense (nearly) the entire NewsBusters and WND websites into one sentient post.

Needs more birth certificate nonsense, but you're getting there...

It's amusing that when you call someone out for being a racist, their retort is to call the accuser a racist. Sign of a weak mind.

I call that the Circus Act Reveal.

Going back to original post, how convenient is it that the GOP are ignoring the fact that a HHS waiver was requested by the Senator for Wisconsin, a Mr Paul Ryan.

Sorry Steve. I'm not on twitter. But from the other nice replies below you, I am assuming you were being 'snarky.' Too bad you couldn't take the time to actually type, and talk to people. You were probably too busy playing 'angry birds' to have an accurate discussion, and my apologies to 'angry birds.'

Let me be clear, then, Lesman. Cartoonthenews was engaged in very obvious snark, lampooning the frequent posts of our resident Republitroll Shooter. (Who, truth to tell, supplied about half the material for my post as well). So, your finger wagging, while well-intentioned, was misdirected.

Um, maybe I'm stupid, but to respond to your challenge:

"While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF."

There's the waiver of the work requirement. Do I win a prize?

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News.

Well, Steve, you have it pretty well down, except . . .

I really resent your hanging this on all the Angry, Old, White People. I saw a lot of angry, white, young people at the Republican Convention and I see a tremendous amount of Old White People at the Democratic Convention that seem to love our President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, while, yes, we are angry.

We are angry to see that the Republicans have stolen the hopes and dreams of the children we raised to believe in the American dream. We are angry to see people in this greatest of all countries believe that they can strip our rights to vote, our personal health rights, our personal rights to believe in the Higher Power of our understanding, to deny our personal responsibility to those who have less than we do.

We are angry to have a Party that thinks it is acceptable to distort, mis-direct, misquote and downright lie to the people they think they have a right to crush under the power they seek.

We are angry that they have decimated the great middle class of this country to feed their greed and power. We are angry that people like Newt Gingrich are able to indoctrinate people with twisted words and codes to his party at the expense of the taxpayers he wants to overcome. We are angry that the once decent Republican Party that we believed in has been taken over by an extreme, disgusting, hatefilled, racist fringe group bought and paid for by the Sheldon Adelsons, the Koch Brothers, Donald Trumps and Mitt Romneys to feed their already ovrflowing coffres.

We are angry that the Republicans display complete disregard to the courtesy of respecting the man sitting in the Oval Office. We are angry about the Orly Tates and Donald Trumps of this country that have the audacity to even question his birthplace. We are angry that the Republican Party feels it has a right to overturn the votes we cast in the last election for President because he doesn't meet their criteria.

We are Angry, Old, White, Black, Asian, Native American Americans that maybe cannot give as much as we want to insure the re-election of President Obama, but can give our vote to that end. Please remember that we "old people" have given our lives to this country we love. We have fought for voting rights for women and for each citizen of this country, we have voted for Social Security (and paid into it all our lives), Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, Student Loans, benefits for our Military returning from World War II, disaster relief for our fellow Americans. The vast majority of "old people" know what America was like before the Bush era, we know what it was like knowing that we could rise as far as our capabilities would take us, we know what it was like to put country before politics, we know what it was like before the Nixons and Bushs turned our country into a fearful, security at risk, and put everything into the rich Wall Street lobbyists pockets.

So please, Steve, don't paint all of us "old people" as just angry Republicans. Paint us with respect to what we have given to our beloved country and grant us the right to disagree with those who are too hung up in their personal pet restrictions to see truth and equity. We know there are those who can't see the street for the city, we know there are those who suffer dementia/senility, but not all of us.

I thank you for the rest of your post, you are right on the money, except for the generality that all Republicans are Angry, Old, White (and I think I saw at least 2 Black) people there.

The interesting thing is that the tax returns of the LDS show that they do not give anything to any outside charity, yet have millions of dollars of goods in warehouses for their parishioners, which is astonishing. I don't know if they are preparing for an Apocalypse, but I don't see why these assets are not use to help the poor or needy of all creeds in the Utah area???? Is it selfish, or is their some kind of plan that they don't care to discuss? They appear to be creating loaves and fishes, but only for their own kind. That does not make sense to me, and I am not bashing or baiting the religion; I just don't understand the leaderships compassion.........

They are preparing for the apocalypse, or some large catastrophe . Every member of the church is asked to keep a 72 hour supply of food for the possibility of impending doom, I'm sure this is the same principle on a grander scale.

That's what it sounds like Brandon. That is awfully reminiscent of Charles Manson, and David Koresh; screw the rest of the world, i'll get my own heaven without you. That reflects in the non collective tone of the repuplicants........

Actually, I'll somewhat defend the LDS here. They distribute a significant amount of food and other supplies to needy people and natural disaster victims (admittedly, within their definition of needy).

Yeah, Mitt knows he can't actually win; he's just hoping Obama loses. It's lot like Kyle Busch running a half lap behind Tony Stewart, knowing he can't catch him, but hoping Stewart crashes into the wall on Turn 4.

KJ: the plan is not Willard's; the plan comes from the Family Research Council, and their ilk, and it is called 'Dominion' over the United States. Please look it up, if you have never heard the term. This is why certain groups have said sic 'we just need a president to sign our bills,' which is totally scary to all americans.

I believe Mitt is trying to run on the platform of "You don't have to vote for me; just don't vote for him".

I live in a country where citizens quietly and [occasionally] legally live the way they please. If America doesn't wise up millions of citizens will be forced to live lives they hate. Compromise and compassion are American virtues too.

and I LOVED it last night when right after Clinton's speech FOX 'NEWS' reports: We have our fact checkers out!!!

and they outright dismissed and demeaned the fact checkers, to give their base another ignorance pass. my god.

Definitely!

When I said something about going to the fact checkers, I was told "Who writes those fact checker sites ?" I'd like to think, maybe naively, they are truly non-partisan, think tank-type, intelligent individuals. How do I respond to people like that?

Lolz, yes! It's all about us!

You can't get into a political argument where you are trying to prove 'my side is more holier than thou' to the other side. Politics needs to be politics, and it can't be defined by your religion; your perspective, yes, but not your influence. I would not force my religion on another........

Damn right Lesman! And Pat Robertson and Mike Hucklebee and I will not 'force' our religion upon you as soon as you heathen Jesus hating liberals convert to Southern Baptist.

Sad; is Oral Roberts 900 foot Jesus standing over your house???? I know you are tongue in cheek, but damn that is a big tongue.......

Nailed it!

Sadly, very sadly. The GOP party of bigots. Not even trying to disguise it now.

What good did that fancy private school do for Romney when he cannot even do math. Oh yea that is right to make money off the kids.

Of course he studied math, He has an MBA. We all know how well that worked out with our first MBA president (Bush43).

He learned how to "catapult the propaganda" from the first MBA persident too.

Yea madstork, Bush and Romney must of forgot their calculators from calculator class 101.

Gregory should give him the dreaded triple-dog-dare ya right after he asks for those pesky tax returns!

David Gregory - hard hitting journalism - dreaded triple-dog-dare ya

Methinks there is some confusion here when David Gregory is connected to 'hard hitting journalism' or even 'journalism'.

The question likely to be closer to what will happen on MTP is "Will David Gregory get on his knees before Willard or will he give him the chair to chair level humm job?"

Q: What is the difference between an @ss-kisser and a brown-nose?

A: Dept perception

Note: At the close of MTP, check to see if there are stains on Gregory's nose...

It's worse than that. The basis of their religion, the central act that created the world as we know it, the thing that screwed up Paradise, was the quest for knowledge.

It's something they just can't abide.

Don't forget that truth has a liberal bias. And facts are inconvienient things.

We should all send MTP and Gregory an email stating we want the TRUTH and if he lies to call him out or have him STATE for the nation where he gets his information. To blantantly lie to millions of people's faces and then to " take it back" or say " I misspoke" to 100's is not acceptable. Gregory and others need to MAN UP and call out these distortions and lies. All Gregory would have to say , " is it not true that YOU were asking for this very thing? " Barrage MTP with emails demanding TRUTH.

Two people with a sense of humor!!! If (big IF) Gregory asks any 'hard questions' of Mittens, he will never follow up Mitt's lying or evasive response.

Q: What is the difference between an @ss-kisser and a brown-nose?

A: Depth perception

Note: At the close of MTP, check to see if there are stains on Gregory's nose...

David Gregory's reputation is heading downhill fast. He needs to go back and look at how Tim Russert handled these situations. So what if Mitty complains about the "liberal media" and doesn't come back to MTP. Gregory needs to start confronting these weasels about their lies and misrepresentations.

If he doesn't start improving his performance as host of MTP, Gregory may soon find himself looking for another gig.

Russell . . . You're being much too generous to Romney. Did you really think think there was any depth he wouldn't plumb in order to win.

The farther behind he gets, and the faster his chances diminish, the uglier his campaign will get.

Neocons don't know arithmetic very well, because they can only use a calculator, and they keep fat fingering the keys. You have your right to an opinion, but you don't have a right to your own set of facts......

..meanwhile..on the ground in real America, people are still unemployed.