Obama administration tries to block sequester layoff notices

[Liability]

The nutters, in this case, are in the Administration sending Dept of Labor advisories to businesses to persuade them NOT to comply with the LAW and, perhaps worse yet, offering that which they have no legal authority to offer: some promise to cover liability exposure for FAILURE to comply with the law.

In the process, the Administration scumbag nutters are stepping on the toes of the Judicial Branch.

The scumbag Administrations nutters are hoping to CONCEAL the effect of the policies of the Administration on jobs and job prospects in this country.

Asshole vile propagandists like you, LonelyLaughable, love that stuff.

Except....they re telling them TO COMPLY with the law. Dickhead.

No they are not.. Why are you willfully lying?? We can all read..

Because he's a low life sack of shit liar, and that's what liars do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So, share with the class, LonelyLaughable, why it made ANY difference what year the WARN law got "passed."

I mean, as we all saw, you DID ask that as though you were making some great and powerful "point."

But you weren't and the rebuttal proves it, you dishonest hack pussy piece of shit.

It is called a mistake. Not a lie. I DID think the law was signed by Reagan. You proved that wrong.. Doesn't make me a liar, idiot. Just mistaken. Happens all the time to honest people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Except....they re telling them TO COMPLY with the law. Dickhead.

No they are not.. Why are you willfully lying?? We can all read..

Because he's a low life sack of shit liar, and that's what liars do.

Again...prove my lie. You really suck at this.

 

[francoHFW]

So, share with the class, LonelyLaughable, why it made ANY difference what year the WARN law got "passed."

I mean, as we all saw, you DID ask that as though you were making some great and powerful "point."

But you weren't and the rebuttal proves it, you dishonest hack pussy piece of shit.

It is called a mistake. Not a lie. I DID think the law was signed by Reagan. You proved that wrong.. Doesn't make me a liar, idiot. Just mistaken. Happens all the time to honest people.

Except when it comes to the UN ambassador and incomplete intelligence....

 

[Inthemiddle]

You don't debunk anything anyway, lonelylaughable.

Oh my god, that was so funny it made me see the evils of Obama and has convinced me to vote for Romney.

 

[Liability]

You don't debunk anything anyway, lonelylaughable.

Oh my god, that was so funny it made me see the evils of Obama and has convinced me to vote for Romney.

Nobody is trying to convince your absurdly shuttered little mind of anything IntheMuddle. It would require at least an iota of objectivity, and thus you are ineligible.

Meanwhile LonelyLaughable has been completely pathetic here. He clearly hasn't debunked anything. He is not able to.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The debunking has been accomplished. The Obama administration is doing nothing outrageous. You fail.

Now...trying to forget that you once supported Herman Cain for President is another matter entirely. Your self-proclaimed high level of intelligence just does not jibe with that. You will forever be known as one of the dummies who latched on to "999" as an economic plan.

Love you more..........

 

[Liability]

So, share with the class, LonelyLaughable, why it made ANY difference what year the WARN law got "passed."

I mean, as we all saw, you DID ask that as though you were making some great and powerful "point."

But you weren't and the rebuttal proves it, you dishonest hack pussy piece of shit.

It is called a mistake. Not a lie. I DID think the law was signed by Reagan. You proved that wrong.. Doesn't make me a liar, idiot. Just mistaken. Happens all the time to honest people.

It wasn't just a mistake. You saw the year it was passed, thought (in your wee tiny pinhead), "ZOMG that was back when Reagan was President!!!!" and then triumphantly pointed to that factoid AS THOUGH it was somehow proof of something important to the discussion.

And let's get real (not one of your strong suits): The notion that it became law during a Republican Administration not only overlooks Dim legislative strength in those days but also got pointed to by you as a deflection. Because no matter when it was passed or who supported it, it is clearly a lib law now which the present Administration is urging businesses to IGNORE.

And that's the real point here, you pinhead. But your deflection effort is rejected.

Let the word go forth that the POINT is STILL how THIS liberal Democrat Administration is urging businesses NOT to comply with a law. And the Administration is doing so by promising things which it is not legally authorized to offer, things which it may not even be legally allowed to provide and ALL of which undermines the legitimate Judicial Branch enforcement of that law.

 

[Liability]

The debunking has been accomplished. The Obama administration is doing nothing outrageous. You fail.

Now...trying to forget that you once supported Herman Cain for President is another matter entirely. Your self-proclaimed high level of intelligence just does not jibe with that. You will forever be known as one of the dummies who latched on to "999" as an economic plan.

Love you more..........

You have not debunked anything., Making such a completely baseless CLAIM, as you just did, simply doesn't qualify.
You remain an abject and obvious liar.

The Administration IS trying to persuade businesses NOT to comply with a law which Liberal Dumbocraps got passed in the first place.

Herman Cain, by the way, would be a MASSIVE improvement over the Incumbent Fail in Chief.

You can spin it all you wish, but what the fucking incumbent is doing is crystal clear. Your spin is a void and it has no persuasive power. As propagandists go, you should, LonelyLaughable.

And contrary to your present lie, I don't proclaim my intelligence. I simply mock you and turdbuckets like you for your obvious lack thereof.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sorry. No wrongdoing. Just practical leadership. You suck. And you supported Cain. Do you really think you belong in a discussion about politics?

 

[Liability]

Sorry. No wrongdoing. Just practical leadership. You suck. And you supported Cain. Do you really think you belong in a discussion about politics?

Yes. Plainly and simply wrongdoing by you. Your spin is ineffective, too.

Nothing about you is practical and you are completely beyond the ability to offer or even recognize practical leadership.

I did support Cain. I already have said as much. I still prefer him to the idiot YOU support, the incumbent with the track record of nearly unremitting FAIL.

And yes, sure. I belong in any discussion about politics. Not you, though. You should be off coloring the pages of your coloring book. Make sure nobody cares if you stay within the lines. Use lots of green. It might soothe your poor benighted soul, you fucking assclown.

Helpful hint just for you. The next time you "ask" some faux question on the PRETEXT that you are scoring some mighty "point," it might help if you had the first fucking clue on the topic on which you choose to bloviate, you douche bag.

 

[Listening]

Sorry. No wrongdoing. Just practical leadership. You suck. And you supported Cain. Do you really think you belong in a discussion about politics?

Not with you.

You are an asshole who has never discussed anything on this board.

You sound more and more like a Schillian (Jillian) sok all the time.

 

[Conservative]

http://touch.govexec.com/govexec/#!...ter-layoff-notices,506616eb5d731fc3073a34ae/1

So, you prefer no warning if you were to be laid off. got it.

 

[Conservative]

So, share with the class, LonelyLaughable, why it made ANY difference what year the WARN law got "passed."

I mean, as we all saw, you DID ask that as though you were making some great and powerful "point."

But you weren't and the rebuttal proves it, you dishonest hack pussy piece of shit.

It is called a mistake. Not a lie. I DID think the law was signed by Reagan. You proved that wrong.. Doesn't make me a liar, idiot. Just mistaken. Happens all the time to honest people.

You sound like TM.

 

[asterism]

Sorry. No wrongdoing. Just practical leadership. You suck. And you supported Cain. Do you really think you belong in a discussion about politics?

Yes. Plainly and simply wrongdoing by you. Your spin is ineffective, too.

Nothing about you is practical and you are completely beyond the ability to offer or even recognize practical leadership.

I did support Cain. I already have said as much. I still prefer him to the idiot YOU support, the incumbent with the track record of nearly unremitting FAIL.

And yes, sure. I belong in any discussion about politics. Not you, though. You should be off coloring the pages of your coloring book. Make sure nobody cares if you stay within the lines. Use lots of green. It might soothe your poor benighted soul, you fucking assclown.

Helpful hint just for you. The next time you "ask" some faux question on the PRETEXT that you are scoring some mighty "point," it might help if you had the first fucking clue on the topic on which you choose to bloviate, you douche bag.

Cain has some baggage. He is still a credentialed Mathematician, a proven Executive, and a Finance Guru. That's better than "Harvard Law Review" and "Community Organizer" in my book. But even if that's not enough, we can see Obama's results. They are DISMAL!

 

[Clementine]

Obama administration tells contractors again: Don


But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.



I can smell the stench of lies and desperation all the way over here.. Hussein Obama and his cohorts bribing these contractors, offering to pay their legal fees.. ALL FOR POWER.. ANYTHNG FOR POWER...

They are afraid reality will hit and people will see that the claims of job creation and lower unemployment are illusions.

 

[Inthemiddle]

we can see Obama's results

Yes we can. What we can't see, is Romney's alternatives.