The Presidential Debate season has come to a close with Monday ushering in the third and final meeting between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. The final debate was held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. The topic was set to be foreign policy but quite lengthy discussion of the economy and domestic issues did push their way in. The moderator was Bob Schieffer, host of Face The Nation on CBS.

Watch the complete 90 minute video:

Transcript: Flash Transcript from ABC News (Will be updated with official transcript within 24 hrs)

Original Air Date: Monday, October 22, 2012

Report from the LA Times:

An assertive President Obama accused Mitt Romney on Monday night of taking an unclear and vacillating approach to foreign policy, saying such confusing signals would embolden the nation’s enemies in a time of continued threats.

Romney responded by brushing aside the attacks, saying they failed to address the serious challenges — and opportunities — the country faces as the Middle East convulses in widespread upheaval.

The two men wasted no time tangling in the opening moments of their third and final presidential debate, a session devoted to national security and foreign policy.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, consistent with the earlier debates, took a more moderate stance than he has in much of the campaign.

He praised Obama for the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden but said the country “can’t kill our way” to a solution in the Middle East. He said the answer is greater economic opportunities and the spread of freedom

Obama immediately went on the attack, citing Romney’s earlier Cold War-style rhetoric and suggesting Romney wanted to institute a 1980s foreign policy to go along with a social policy from the 1950s and economic policies from the 1920s.

“Every time you’ve offered an opinion,” the president said bluntly, “you’ve been wrong.”

Looking at the entire 2012 debate series in whole, who came out on top?

553 COMMENTS

  1. Why in the world is Barack Obama allowed to lie? I voted for him, because I believed in change. He is shameful in the debate tonight, he has not done what he told us and stuns me into silence at the lies he is telling.

    • You got to keep in mind that Obama has been working a lot with what he promises to change. Congress placed many regulations that slow down the policies Obama wants to impose. No president can do every single thing they promise in four years.

    • Coleen, I am not sure what lies you are talking about. It was Mr. Romney who was untruthful, not to mention his VP candidate, who shamelessly spewed lies on his acceptance speech at the Rep Convention. What world are you living in? Be an informed voter, read, listen to the news on more than one channel (I suspect you watch Fox).
      It is true that Obama put some spin on some of Romney’s remarks, but – be honest with yourself even if you don’t want to say it in public – Mr Romney and the GOP machine have put so much more spin on what Mr Obama says that is it downright shameful. Remember the ads where they took the ‘you didn’t built this’ out of context? Or has the Fox Cool-aid completely destroyed your perspective?

    • As I was watching the debate, it struck me what a hard job ANY challenger has in a foreign policy debate. What can he say? He could pick at a few things, but for the most part, Romney had to agree with just about everything Obama has done.

      The one striking difference was that Romney was trying to twist his message to peace, after being a fire-breathing chicken-hawk all year–and even tonight, criticizing Obama for trying to engage all the leaders in the area.

      • It is difficult to have critque on a good policy. The foreign policy of president Bush gave ample reason to have lots of crique.

    • I am pretty sure that, despite this last debate, Miss Romney put a stick into Mitts wheel, by announcing that her husband would retire, if he doesn’t become president.And is it so hard to see through Mitt Romney’s tricks, when he used good old Neuro linguïstic programming? It can’t get any worse, by electing somebody like that…

      • Marie-Jane:

        I thought the same thing. Ann Romney was saying, “I’m sick of this, I’m otta here.” And she was putting the Mittster on notice that he will not get a second chance.

    • I am intrigued why do you say he lied? America is not like my bed room where if I told my wife I will clean up and didn’t get to it she can accuse me of lying. Regardless, I would like to know in which of his 08 manifestos he lied

    • We’ll see who lied about what when all the factcheck reports come in. You cannot say so n’ so is lying because you cannot know everything about all the topics they talked about tonight. The president needs many committees to keep up with all this stuff. We are all just individuals barely getting the whole story of anything.

  2. I only caught the first several minutes before I turned it off because the feed broke up so badly. However, I agree with Coleen — Obama was so blatantly misrepresenting what Romney has said. I guess he depends on people not following the news and not listening to any of Romney’s speeches. I’ll watch the rest of the debate tomorrow.

    • lol romney misrepresents what romney says, obama just has to keep up with what side of the coin mittens is showing!

    • The most bizarre moment of the night was when Romney said he’d try to prosecute Ahmadinejad for “genocide” for things that he has SAID.

      First, doesn’t Romney realize that “-cide” means murder, as in “homocide”?? (Not speaking meanly.)

      Second, he was criticizing Ahmadinejad for what he SAID. Doesn’t that tell us the value Romney puts on “freedom of speech” and other rights, for that matter?

      Truly bizarre.

  3. Coleen, I feel like I am in the twilight zone. How could Obama speak about the Middle East as if everything is fine.
    1.) Libya was a failure from the start. Libya traded Muammar Gaddafi for the Muslim Brother hood.
    2.) Egypt traded down for a Muslim Brother hood leader.

    People don’t realize that democracy is a front, a guise for getting their foot in the door to only turn around and take their people back to the 5th century. Women will suffer under this rule and Christians will die. Obama does not care as long as his legacy is in tact.

    Obama is truly in my opinion the worst president in my lifetime to address foreign affairs. …and his economics disastrous have proven as well. I am tired of him being disingenuous.

    • Dee:

      I think it is hilarious that people like you talk about the wonders of “democracy” until it occurs, and then you hate it.

  4. Really, you think change can come that quick? In four years? It’s rediculous to think that big change will come that fast. It’s the same to think that it will in the next four years as well. We need to look ahead, and not look for immediate gratification. I voted for Obama, not with the intention of having major changes in four years, but to have someone there trying to look ahead for the long term. Ultimately it will come down to a major breakdown in our economy for people to actually change. Yeah we’ve had some down time in our current economy but that is nothing compared to what actually NEEDS to happen for people to actually start caring enough to make a change big enough for our economy to build back up. Just look at the amount of money spent by both parties on this presidential run?

  5. By the way, our “NEWS” in this country is a horrible reference, and it’s also a good indicator of what our (“facade” of economy) really is.

  6. I agree with Coleen. I’m 13 (I know it sounds funny) but I have been watching the debates for my History class, and following some politics, and i feel that Romney actually knows what he is doing, and is not relying on the public to not watch the news. If i could vote, i would pick Romney because he has better solutions to our problems, especially gas prices, debt, and taxes.

    • Jordan:

      I don’t agree with you, but I am glad you’re here and thinking about our country at such an early age. Keep watching, and why not start thinking about local issues. Maybe you can go from school board to city commission to state rep. We need people who are serious. And my guess is that as you keep watching, your opinion will change. Welcome!

  7. You people must be smoking crack. Romney lies in every damn speech he gives. Turn off FOX NEWS and go to a real news station.

  8. Both are polished debaters, but I’m leaning to Romney. Our country needs to run a tighter ship in the economic department: cut out unnecessary spending to reign in the budget.

  9. If people know, obama has spent his whole time trying to get stuff done but the our government is so divided nothing ever gets done. The republicans will only help rich and let the rest of us suffer. Romny has made it clear that he doesn’t care about us but just to help his friends and made money for when he retires. Obama took out bin laden while Romny no. The republicans want war and oil for their oil friends in the middle east. If you vote romny your don’t support america or womens rights. Be smart before you vote.

  10. If Romney is voted in or not 12 million jobs will be created, he’s just taking credit for it. Romney is a business man, hes created a lot of jobs…just not in America. As a business man, he has created more jobs in other countries so he can pay workers less to better line his pockets…Romney is full of shit. I can’t even imagine how people could seriously vote for him.

  11. I find it humorous that we have all these people that live in this country that will (no matter what) support the President in whatever way regardless of what he has not done but has promised to do.

    Frankly, everyone should be afraid of Obama’s statements to the Russians when he thought the mic was off. This is the real Barack Obama. Granted, Romney has been caught on mic in a similar fashion but his statements were about the homeland. We have a President that is making other countries no longer fear the power that has kept most of the world from killing one another.

    If we begin to lead from behind, which we have, are we on the path to isolationism that helped the rise of some of the worst dictators of the last 100 years? Granted, it is a huge burden to carry the flag of freedom but that flag of freedom also prevents others from fighting on our soil. I’d much rather defeat those who kill 30,000 of their own people then ever let those same people get the chance from killing 30,000 of our civilians here in the states.

    • MC:

      Fox has driven the Russian thing into the ground, but think about it. If you’re talking to a lame duck president, do you really want to make promises to him and then have to start over when Putin takes over? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say, “yeah, yeah, sure, sure, we can talk about that next year.” That’s what I would do.

      As for “leading from behind,” that’s pretty much what GHW Bush did in the Gulf War–our finest moment–when he waited until he had EVERY country in the world lined up before we went in. AND we made a PROFIT on that war!!

      Obama had a similar approach in Libya. He let France (for crying out loud) take the lead. We were there to make sure the job got done, but we really WILL be better off if we can get other countries to carry part of the burden–instead of running in like a bull in a china shop–and letting everyone else watch every war on TV.

      We spend more than nearly ALL the rest of the world COMBINED. Wouldn’t it make more sense to push other countries into taking some of this responsibility? That’s not “isolationism.” For crying out loud, the president’s critics flip from saying he’s trying too hard to not hard enough on nearly every issue. Cripes.

        • Surfisher:

          Thanks for the opportunity. It struck me that it is very difficult for any challenger to debate a sitting president on foreign policy. If he is negative, he sounds unpatriotic. But I think Romney went overboard saying “me too!” His goal seemed to be to say, “see? I’m not dangerous!”

          There were 13 questions:
          (1) Libya–Romney missed a chance to make Obama uncomfortable.
          (2) Syria–Romney said we need to do more, but couldn’t say what.
          (3) Egypt–Should we have supported Mubarek? Romney said yes previously, no now.
          (4) U.S. role in world? Both want us to rule the world.
          (5) Money–Romney wants more money for the military, where is he going to get it? He didn’t really have an answer.
          (6) Israel–Attack on them is attack on us? Neither of them answered the question.
          (7) Iran–what would you accept? Muddle on both sides.
          (8) Israel–What if bombers are on the way? Muddle on both sides.
          (9) Afghanistan–What if they’re not ready to take over from us? Muddle on both sides.
          (10) Pakistan–Time to divorce? Muddle on both sides.
          (11) Drones? Romney says Obama is doing great.
          (12) Greatest future threat? Obama got the opportunity to point out that Romney recently said Russia was our main enemy.
          (13) China–Would “currency manipulator” charge cause trade war? Dumb question–even dumber answers.

          Bottom line is that Romney tried to sound like the “peace candidate” after rattling sabres all year. I thought that was ludicrous.

  12. I have followed this entire Presidential Election. Mitt Romney has stated many things that have not been factual. He has changed his stories with in moments. Through fact checks Obama has came out to be the one most honest throughout the entire election. Obama is credible and honest. Romney on the other hand should not even be a politician whatsoever.

  13. Wow its sad how bias this written report is below the video…im neither republican or democrat and my personal opinion is Obama and his “change” needs to be a thing of the PAST not the FUTURE. He hasn’t shown very much potential for giving the people “hope”…a new president like Romney may give us a better chance to heal and not be wasted. God help us all.

    • Oil has nothing to do with Obama. Be happy you don’t have liters. (A liter is 1/4 of a gallon) An were paying twive as much as you are.

    • We’re keeping our oil here instead of selling it. How dare he save us all that money. I think we should sell all our oil, to insure dependence on importing a more expensive product.
      (P.s. I was being sarcastic, this approach would make gas cost anywhere from 10 dollars to 15 dollars a gallon.)

      • Colyn:

        I TOTALLY agree. If I were in charge, I would be buying oil and pumping INTO our depleted wells. And if the price went down, I’d double-down. We should NOT be using up OUR oil until the price is so astronomical that it will solve all our economic problems.

    • I’m not sure how or why people keep thinking this. THE PRESIDENT OR HIS ADMIN. DO NOT CONTROL (WHETHER THROUGH DRILLING OR ANYTHING ELSE) OIL/GAS PRICES, WORLD MARKETS DETERMINE THE PRICE. Oil is in very high demand. Countries like China are expanding like crazy. A question in the first debate was, “Should the Dept. of Energy do more to lower gas prices?” Immediately, the President should have been clear that it doesn’t work like that, but… he has opened up more for drilling and renewables.

    • MCFiv, you should thank the bush and the cheney clan – the oil barons – for the miraculous price peak. there’s more oil on the market than ever and the oil companies make the prices not the governments or president of the usa.

  14. It is the republicans who repeatedly reject any kind of cross party negotiations. We can still have a military power for freedom and help the world. But we need to help our people first. Everyone just stop fighting, sit down, and just talk things over. Maybe a third party that is neither Democrat or Republican should be created. One that takes a little from both sides, but stays more neutral. Not any of the dumb independent parties or other ones that always fail at everything. A Neutralist Party. Let the people take more actions with foreign policy by putting someone in that won’t be afraid to take both sides to the table and get things done.

  15. How on Earth did Obama win in this debate?! He recited his speech, brought up topics that had nothing to do with foreign policy (because they were in his speech.) He was rude, childish and blatantly lied to the country yet again.. The only thing he has been successful in is digging a bigger hole for this country.

    • Meg: I wouldn’t say Obama “won” the debate. Romney lost it. Almost all night, he was saying, “me, too” and “I like what you did and wish you had done more.”

      His biggest mistake was the “WTF Moment of the Night,” when he obviously didn’t know what “genocide” means–and is clearly an enemy of free speech.

  16. OBAMA IS THE FUTURE LEADER THAT WILL LEAD TO INTERESTING FUTURE FOR HUMAN KIND. WITH IRANS TENSION WITH ISRAEL AND CHINA AS A TOP COMPETITOR

  17. Making a big deal about Obama lying?

    What about the stance gov. Romney held towards the dying American auto industry?
    Such blatant lies and deceit.

    Nothing Romney said was specific. All generic bs spewed (which might sound great to the less educated Americans) that he thinks are right responses.
    The president gave specific examples of how he’s led, defended his positions, called Romney out on BS, and most importantly, defended the importance of education in this country.

    There is a reason why the most developed and educated states are majority democrat.
    We need to go forward, not backward.

  18. Marlene & Coleen,
    Were we watching the same debate? Romney has flip flopped on issues throughout his political career. He should stick with what he knows: how to line his own silk pockets by shutting down biz at the expense of the hardworking Americans. He’s the antithesis of a ‘job creator.’

  19. I strongly disagree with Coleen who is Coleen who is Romney supporter. Romney lies more then Obama & of course lies for a living & let’s not forget he flip-flops.
    -Ron Paul 2012

  20. Romney is the best at teaching how to BS everything. I’ve gotten so much better at BSing by learning from Romney’s speeches and his 180 page paper on his website, I’ve learned that people don’t actually check sources or “facts” that you say and that specifics are always gonna piss some people off, but if you say you’re going to improve X, and say that you’re going to improve X by improving Y and Z but never saying how you’re going to improve Y and Z, then the reader can’t find anything wrong with the argument because there’s no specifics so they’ll never find any repercussions of your ideas or policies.

    How to BS: Instead of saying “I’m going to make the people of Afghanistan more self reliant,” say “I’m going to make the situation better in Afghanistan by making the Afghanis more self reliant”. The first one make the reader question how that’s going to happen but the second one makes a complicated question into a simplified answer.

  21. I am completely support with Adam.Obama is 80% successful in his foreign policy while you can see that Romney is just focus on his own policy “the five point”.He is the big liar!!

  22. The only shameful thing is that Republicans believe they can post as ‘disgruntled’ Democrats and that people don’t see through it. The President came across as the Commander-in-Chief that he is. He solves problems in spite of a do-nothing-but-criticize Republican Party (name one other President that has faced 300 Filibuster threats from right wing zealots). I have paid attention to the news (and not just Faux)and Romney’s sudden shift to the middle is the very pack of lies you are referring to. He only represents the rich and will tell any fib and switch any position to get the power back. The President has stabilized the economy and placed us on a firm foundation and deserves the opportunity to move us forward.

  23. I am confident about the victory of President Obama.. At this cross road he has clearly and confidently states what he has done during last four years and what to do for the next four years with a transparent check and balance. Get out to vote on 06th November to support the incomplete mission of President Obama .

  24. If I can make a live feed online with my little Nikon and a laptop in HD that is not glitchy, there is no escuse for the poor quality represented here. I hope the team that filmed this is black listed.

  25. As americans we are so blessed to have a choice. We are so blessed to have two parties that challenge each other and make each other better in most cases. We can hold our president and our challengers accountable. I am so impressed and proud of what President Obama has done in the past 4 years. It’s hard to remember, it’s hard to remember to go back, to look forward and to be grateful simultaneously. This debate helped me to remember. But, just like when Obama won, I have to feel bad for John McCain. It takes a lot of time and energy and strength to put your life on hold for years. I respect Mitt Romney. I think it comes down to choices. What issues matter most to you. Who you identify with and who represents us better. I have to say, being overseas, visiting places like Italy, Morocco and Israel, while Bush was in office and when Obama was in office. It’s hard not to notice the difference. We are liked again in the world. We are respected, we are trusted. Our President’s policy of honesty, patience and due diligence and violence as a last resort is a blessing. Not to make a touchy analogy, but if you actually read the New Testament. It really IS what Jesus would do. I am so happy he is in office and will continue to be there.

  26. Lovely Americans,

    So you think 5 dollars a gallon for gas is much, huh?

    Well, in Europe we buy our gas per liter (1 gallon is about 3,78 liter). Currently, the average price of gas in the Netherlands is 1.86 euro per liter, a.k.a. 7,03 euro per gallon. Taking into account that 1 euro currently buys 1.30 dollar, you would need 9,13 dollar to buy a gallon of gas in the Netherlands today.
    As for the rest of Europe? It’s almost never cheaper and can be over 2 euro per liter. Last february I was in Turkey, much closer to the biggest oil regions in the world, where gas was above 2,10 per liter.

    Guess there are some advantages to fascism after all!

    Regards,

    Europe

    • Thank you so much for posting this. Gas was about 1.30 euro per liter when I was in Austria in 2005, while in America we were complaining about gas hitting $3 per gallon after hurricane Katrina. Americans have no idea how easy we have it. In the end, Europe will be better off because they were smart enough to build an excellent public transportation system and stick to small, gas-efficient cars. Unless you’re in a big city, practically no one in America uses public transport. People prefer to drive their SUVs and then complain about gas prices when their Hummer that gets 8 miles/gallon costs $150 to fill up. Gas will have to reach $5, $7, $10+ per gallon to shake some sense into our heads and get us to invest in better public transport, alternative fuels, and to efficiently use the fossil fuels we do have.

    • Prices at the pump have increased dramatically while prices per barrel don’t reflect such a dramatic increase in price so yes we Americans are complaining about the prices we are paying. In regards to the vehicles being driven in America we have exported more then we have in previous years because people in other countries want to buy our big bulky gas eating cars! It is funny how everyone hates America but wants to be American. and by the way it is much easier to type and blog about a problem then it is to actually go out there and fix it! you seem quick to point out a problem but not so fast with that solution…

  27. The incomplete mission of driving our country into the ground and humiliating us throughout the world? Yeah I want 4 more years to complete that.

  28. I have thought a great deal about this and have concluded that it is impossible to be an elected official(including President) and maybe impossible to even be a Federal Government Employee and still believe in “God”, unless Satan or Lucifer is your God. If any Government Official or Employee believed in God, they would have to believe in a Judgement, a Heaven and Hell, and would know they are destined for Hell.

    • You are right, God is a judge. He is a just judge who decided to take our punishment on Himself and died in our place. We don’t realize what we really deserve, but God is so just and our sines could not go unpunished. We deserve death, but He took death instead. I have studied other religions my friend, and there is no other god or leader like this One. He is a judge, the only judge who took your punishment because He could not just let you die. He loves you so much.

      • You need to shut up and join reality. Religion now does nothing but get in the way of the progression of the human race as a whole. Remember when the bible said slavery is alright? Or that women should never take power over a man? And if you claim its all for good morals an intelligent person doesn’t need the promise of heaven to see the moral in good deeds. Turn all that blind love you give to a deity to others. We should work together to further all of man kind not worry about judgement that will never happen.

        • Zack, if you knew anything about the Christian faith you are criticizing, you would know that our love of God is why we are called to give everyone else what you called blind and I call unconditional love. If you remove a sovereign God from the equation, you are left with the selfish decisions of men. Look at history and see where that has gotten us. The only good in us comes from God. I am sorry for whoever has shown you such a poor example of faith. I hope that you are provided with a better example that will help you understand.

        • Well if you knew anything about the Bible you would know that God is not Jesus; in fact Jesus is God’s son and he died for our sins. Also the Bible clearly states that only 144,000 will be ascending to Heaven. Also directly blowing your ideas out of the water, the Bible states that “Nation will rise against Nation and man will dominate man to his injury.” It is literally impossible for man to create peace upon the whole Earth and correct his own step. If you want to argue with the Bible go for it but just know that doing that would be quite an unintelligent move.

      • Religion now does nothing but get in the way of the progression of the human race as a whole. Remember when the bible said slavery is alright? Or that women should never take power over a man? And if you claim its all for good morals an intelligent person doesn’t need the promise of heaven to see the moral in good deeds. Turn all that blind love you give to a deity to others. We should work together to further all of man kind not worry about judgement that will never happen.

        • Zack/Separationchurchstate,

          You seem to be the same person. First, you should know that the word “Bible” comes from the Koine Greek, which when translated, means “the books”). Think of it as books in a library. Now, if you went to the library you would find different types of books, wouldn’t you? You would find poetry, history, psychology, romance, prophecy, etc. Unless, you have studied the Bible (getting ahold of a good expository Bible, one that explains each line/verse), you might not know what you are reading and who it was written to.

          When you make generalized statements like the Bible says that ” slavery is alright? Or that women should never take power over a man?”, you are showing your ignorance, especially when you don’t cite the Book/chapter/verse. Any scholar, intellectual person, will cite the source that they are referencing right?

          Perhaps if you actually studied the Bible, you might find it to be pretty amazing and useful!

          • Books in a library… history, poetry, fiction… So, “the books” could have some history, for it is a historical document, but they could also have fictional accounts and some things fore purely aesthetic appeal.
            Also, considering the new testament was written up to 300 years after Christ’s death, I’m sure it would be very accurate…..

            • Sloan you are “correct” when you said that New Testament was “written” after Christ’s death.

              The New Testament was started shortly after His ascension by the eyewitness apostles. These are the Gospels of Matthew and John in particular. Luke was written a bit later, but based on interviews with those involved. The tradition behind Mark was that he was Peter’s nephew or son and he wrote down what Peter told him about. Acts was written by Luke as an eyewitness account since he was involved in the early days as well. The letters were written through the next 20 or 30 years as the Apostles journeyed and answered questions, also presenting doctrine and encouraging the young churches. The last book to be written was around 90 A.D., when John was on Patmos, during his exile. That is Revelation.

              All the material was written before 100 A.D., and it was quoted from extensively, as accepted Scripture, in letters back and forth almost immediately.

              Regarding the “Old Testament”, Oracles(the “spoken word”) which were not simply yes or no seem most often to have been given in poetic form. Poetry is the second most common literary feature and comprises almost one-third of the Bible.

              Though given orally in the beginning, at some time the “pronouncement oracles” were written down. They may have been written by disciples of the prophet or by others who heard. They may have been written when they were first told or at a later time. Whatever the case, the oracles were given by God and preserved for us.

        • Joshy:

          Romney doesn’t believe that. He thinks there’s no such thing as a Trinity, and when HE dies, he’ll BE a God and have his own planet to live on.

          Not that there’s anything wrong with that. . . .

          • Goethe Behr, I so often enjoy reading most of your posts, you seem very informed about many issues, but this time you are very wrong in the way that you present that. You take something that obviously you are not real informed about, maybe read something?, and try to twist it into something bad. Believing or not believing in the trinity does not make you a good or bad person. If you want to really know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka the “mormons” and what they believe then invite the missionaries to your home so you can have the opportunity to learn more of what the faith is about, or go to http://www.mormon.org and order a free book of mormon and read it, not with the intention to argue about it but with the intent to learn. Leaning more about the word of God is never a bad thing to do but trying to mock someones religious belief, well thats just messed up.
            Please continue posting your very informative posts, and I will continue reading. 🙂

  29. Running as the incumbant is difficult unless you are a senator or congressman because you are not privie to much of the information that goes into making foreign policy. Romney is trying to make decisions and judgements knowing a little more than the well informed civilian but better decision making ability comes from having a group of individuals who help in educating and informing the president when he is elected.

    At this time, the real question is where do we want our country to be in the future?

    Mr. Obama is trying but who is really running the executive office and making decisions and policies? He has given us two large bills (stimulus) and (health care reform) as well as 950 executive orders which there is no way he could have written or been completely involved in? How could he father these items and have time to be the president?

    Romney will learn by being taught and informed by his staff and cabinet and that is what all presidents do, and it’s a hard job no matter what.

    The job of all of us is to try to decide if we can elect a president who is willing to listen, learn, and consider future implications of the decisions he will make.

    Chose carefully because it affects all of our futures!

    Tony G (R)
    Candidate Hopefull for Senate of NV 2014

  30. Obamma says that he did not go on an apology tour???? thats funny i coulda swore that his favorite foreign policy at the beginning of his 4 years was “im sorry”, well im sorry Mr. President but i cannot agree with a man that constantly lies to his people and tries to take credit for other peoples deeds, i cannot abide a man that lies through his teeth and just talks, you had a chance to walk the walk instead you only talked the talk and did poorly even with that.

        • Yvonne:

          I’m disappointed, too, but I’m not disappointed because Obama didn’t see his job as insulting and belittling foreign leaders.

          I’m disappointed because he didn’t find a way to close Gitmo, end the childish penalties on Cuba, force a beginning of peace talks in Palestine, and that sort of thing.

          • Ya , what you said. 🙂 LOL hehehehehee…Cant take it alllll tooooo seriouse now can we. GO ROMNEY!!!!! Oh by the way I did vote for Ross Perot back in the day when I thought my vote really counted. Got fooled didn’t I. hehehehehe And on the more seroius side of things, how is Obama suppose to take care of all those things you mention when he’s spending his time on an appology tour? Ya I see your point in what your saying although I don’t believe that he has done this country any justice and I do not want another 4 years of it. Believe me I am not really as nieve as most about what goes on in the white house, the world bank the federal reserve, 5 days for the public to read all bills before passed, making of money blah blah blah, I think you know all of what I am talking about and probaby even more, and I do have to say that Obama is the worst liar of all, he is not as good at it as many before have been, whewwww that was a mouthful but boy do I feel better friend. thanks for listening to my unemotional rants…

    • I want to point out some inconsistencies to you, for example Romney said that we should have better relations with countries from South America, but criticize in the same time the tour in South America…

      When you sustain in the same time A and -A something is wrong. Republicans are equipped not only with a special math where romney’s figures magically make sense, but also with a different kind of logic, one where Obama is at wrong weather it is A or -A. But I digress…

      The “apology tour” was in fact a very balanced approach in the foreign policy that had as result a wider and this time real international coalition and brought back credibility to USA that was lost after the unnecessary and unjustified war in Iraq.

      Hypothetically speaking… If my dog shit on your door I will have to apologize. If it were an apologize tour the only explanation would be that bush was shitting on everybody’s doors, because the president Obama was at the beginning of his first mandate. So the “apologize” argument is not really a good weapon because, if true, points out in fact the failure of bush policies. I mean if bush was never president (or have never existed for this matter) the world would have been a better place. Unfortunately bush exists and was president.

      My example and (good) thought about the bush non-existence has little to do with the reality, it is an “if…” situation. In reality Obama never actually apologize and always balanced the speech (where bush really shit on your door). He did a lot better than people are ready to give him credit, in my opinion spectacular better and the results speak by themselves. We never had such an international coalition and in recent times we never had such approval rate from international community and regular folks from around the world.

      Romney is talking about sanctions against this and that and a stronger military force. This is the usual Republican bs. If we dictate sanctions it doesn’t mean that they can or will be enforced. How many times China or Russia veto us? For all these sanctions to work we must have China and Russia on board. This is a fact of life. Unless you want to start a war and shit again on people’s doors. I suppose that having these historical enemies on board is a very big achievement and in all honesty I wouldn’t expected to happen. I am sure that a Republican president would never be able to achieve such performances. In fact it was not achieved during bush and romney is much lesser of a candidate than bush was.

      When Obama says Romney is “all over the map” he is right, but this is not a surprise at all.

      Romney is a guy looking for his own personal interest, his own bottom line, he is a speculant, a profiteer.

      Let’s take as example the outsourcing of jobs from America. It should be common knowledge that Bain Capital invested in outsourcing jobs. Romney (founding father) run it for 15 years, than conveniently retro-active retired with benefits and advanced the lame excuse of the blind trust. Now it is a fact that Bain Capital did in fact outsource jobs. It remains to decide if you buy the excuse, personally… I am not that naive.

      The cost of labor in China, for example in the Guangdong industrialized area is between 100 – 200$. Do you really think that a guy like romney will ever put a stop on outsourcing jobs when this influence directly his bottom line and the bottom line of the richest of the country?

      Add that in China you do not have to offer any benefits at all, like health insurance, the hours of work are easily 10 – 12 on all industries and you have eventually just one free day every month. This inhuman conditions happen because guys as romney. You all can argue how much you want, true be spoken we don’t f**king care of those people. But we do care when these jobs slip from our hands. The “job creator” never actually worked (I mean real work) a day of his life. Just executive positions as in Bain, company that is precisely the opposite of creating jobs in America.

      There are many other things that may tell you something about this guy’s character, but with the tunnel vision that hit all republicans I am afraid I am wasting my time.

      I would say maybe one more thing: Romney want to poke China in his first day. “I will declare China in my first day in the Office as currency manipulator”. This is plain stupid. Luckily enough is just propagandistic and hopefully enough Obama will be reelected.

  31. You can discern that Obama is always attempting to attack his presidential opponent rather than addressing the real challenges that America face.

    He can’t even quote the man correctly. Misquoting is his tactic. Unfortunately many believe.

  32. Here’s a question for the Obama supporters:

    Can you at least share what Obama’s vision is for America according to him?

    • Rock:

      I’m not really an Obama supporter. I’m a Romney opponent. But I’ll answer, anyway.

      (1) Obama wants us to be strong, but wants to bring our military budget to a point of insanity. We are not going to be fighting world wars anymore.
      (2) Obama wants a cooperative approach, like that of GHW Bush. “Leading from behind” is not a sin, it’s a virtue. We allowed France to be the “hero” in the Libya war. Saved our guys, saved our money, got the job done, and maybe we can get other countries to share the cost of defense.
      (3) Time to “nation build” at home.

      Since it was a foreign affairs debate, I guess that’s it in a nutshell.

    • If we are talking in general terms, I believe the healthcare reform is the centerpiece of his presidency. This is to say the constitutional right of every citizen to decent healthcare.

      In the context of this debate, I guess Obama’s vision is to have international support, to maintain and even extend this international coalition.

      Obama’s foreign policy is very intelligent and do not receive enough appreciation for it. International support. Avoiding deploying of troops as much as possible. Use of force only as last resort. Delegating the war and maintenance to allies. Chirurgical use of force in quick conflicts with maximum results.

      I’ll give you a straightforward example: killing osama. It was achieved very efficiently. We did not start a war and it did not bankrupt the country.

      Compare bush: started a war under false pretenses, without any international support and brought the country to ruin. The result? Very little was achieved compared with the disaster at home.

      Compare romney: this guy wants to spend money that we continue not to have on things that nobody is asking. He wants to build a new fleet, for example. This shows how little understanding this guy has about things. It will probably never be such a war. Today’s threats are of a different kind. Wars such the one in Iraq proved inefficient. The kind of attacks that killed Osama, this is what we need in fact.

      It is easy to say things that sound good, like “the best military in the world”, “israel is our ally” and other Republican bs. It is much more difficult to put it in practice and Obama performed in foreign policy unexpectedly well where Republican approach of the military proved catastrophic for our economy and brought no real benefits.

  33. I think Obama was veery CLEAR with his statement . Romney spent most of his time correcting what he said or didnot say , and beside could not really convience me to vote for me as i wanted earlier . Sorry Mr Romney , but i think Mr Obama has a better and clear views for the country at the moment . Thanks

  34. Amazing that the people have been bamboozled into thinking that either Barack or Mitt are a solution — when both are AGAINST these principles upon which our Nation was built!

    PRINCIPLES we must stand by!!!

    “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

    “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

    “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

    “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.” FREDERICK DOUGLAS

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
    —————————————————————————–———–—

    Voting for either would be legitimizing the further corruption that seems to have no end!

    VOTE for Garry Johnson — or face the dire consequences of failing to do so — TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA!

    • Thank you! All too true. Yet so many are too blind to see that neither of these candidates can represent America as a whole.

    • You know that voting for Gary Johnson is only taking votes away from the two choices that the majority of America is seeing and will vote for. I know nothing about this Gary Johnson nor does main stream America. The guy probably does have a greater vision but he hasn’t shared it with the rest of us, only the two that we see in the debates have and those are the two that the majority will vote for. Voting for him is the same as not voting, you should know that.
      Although I personally do know of a person who was voted into office of Mayor in a small town in Colorado, who was not even on the ballet, he was a write in, but…… that was a small small town and word of mouth was able to reach each and every voter.

      • Yvonne — exactly!

        Time to start looking for a Real Person — not the puppet twins (BO & Mitt) whose aim is the eventual destruction of Free Americans.

        Watch a REAL DEBATE tonight with Gary Johnson…and compare to the orchestrated hand-puppet show that was last night!

        (voting for the lesser of two evils, still gets you evil in office)

      • Yvonne:

        I disagree.

        As you say, a vote for Gary Johnson will take away from BOTH candidates, probably more from Obama, since he is strongly anti-war and anti-war-on-drugs.

        So (a) it will not impact the main race, and (b) will show the two parties that we are sick of them.

        • Goethe Behr — I’ll state that Yvonne is a Rmoney shill.

          One reply…and then no more are needed (since the brainwashed cannot be unwashed…).

          P.S. How many Shills have you spotted yet — I’ve got about 7 for the BO and 6 for the Rmonkey.

          • Surfisher:

            I think today’s response shows who LOST the debate.

            Willard’s folks are lying low, licking their wounds, after Willard’s lies didn’t wound Barry.

        • Serious you two, I just happen to have more of a life than watching this blog all day, I get a minute and maybe look but I am starting to feel like I am wasting my time. This blog has nothing to do with who won the debate or who I am supporting blah blah blah. My initial hope of getting on this blog was to get some idea of the way america was thinking and I think I learned. When the common people spend time fighting with eachother then they are overlooking the real issues and acting on emotion only . So am I suppose to react emotionally because you think I am a Romney supporter which for your information I am! Does that make me a bad person? Am I suppose to be intimidated by your statements? Just curious. 🙂

          • Yvonne:

            I didn’t meant as a political statement (which is why I talked about Willard and Barry). It was just an observation. After the first debate, almost ALL the replies here were pro-Romney/anti-Obama. It was nearly unanimous.

            After this debate, the responses were almost unanimously pro-Obama/anti-Romney.

            That was my observation. I thought about counting them, since I prefer to give objective data when I can, but out of the 154 posts I got after the begining of last night’s debate, only about five of them were pro-Romney.

            And, yes, you’re a bad person, but it has nothing to do with politics. 😉

            • ok,Now that you kicked my trike in the ditch I will just go sit in the corner and cry in my cheerios 🙁

              🙂 🙂 🙂
              ANd on that note Im going to bed so I can get up and go vote early tomorrow. You know what they say, It’s been real and its been fun.

    • Surfisher, as much as I respect your perspective and point of view, not to mention the impressive quotes, I have to say this; it’s a historical fact that no third party candidate has ever won an election in this country. The main reasons being that they either were not as well known and made very little impact with voters: ie, Ron Paul, or that people would prefer to listen to the dominant two parties: ie, Republicans and Democrats. The only country in the past 20th century to have a third party candidate win an election was Germany in the late 1930s. We all know what happened after that. 😛

      • ML2TheExtreme — cute sophism.

        So you are saying to keep voting for the one perceived as the lesser of two evils, and not our conscience?

        No wonder our Nation is nearing its End as Free and Sovereign People— with such dead dogma advice as yours.

      • ML:

        I would disagree. The American Independent Party might have won in 1992–if Ross Perot had not dropped out and came back very oddly. But usually a third party wins when a second party dies.

        Lincoln’s “Republican” party was actually a “third party” as the Whigs dissolved. Likewise, the “Democratic-Republican” party (now Democratic Party) succeeded the Anti-Federalists. The Whigs took over for the Federalists.

        Today, if the Libertarians and Tea Party got together, the Republican Party would be history.

        HOWEVER, this year is unique, since Gary Johnson represents issues (including anti-war, anti-drug-war) that would appeal to liberals and fiscal policies that would appeal to conservatives.

        Therefore, for once in our lives, we can vote for a third party candidate without risking “throwing the election” to either main party.

        • Goethe,

          James Stockdale (his running mate) lost it for him when he said “Who am I? Why am I here?”, when responding to a request for an opening statement from debate moderator, Hal Bruno in 1992. Even though Stockdale was 69 years old, he looked like he had alzheimers or old timers disease.

          • Daisy:

            Well, a lot of things help and hurt a campaign, but I agree that this was one of them.

            I think Stockdale was trying to be cute. In 1976, Jimmy Carter used “Jimmy Who?” to his advantage, since he came out of nowhere. I think Stockdale, was echoing what we were thinking–who is this guy? And why is he a candidate? He did go on to answer the question, but he didn’t have the presence to pull it off. So it ended up sounding like dementia.

            But even with the missteps, Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. GHW Bush had 37.5% and Perot got 18.9%. That doesn’t sound like much, but if he had stayed in the race, I am sure he would have had TWICE the support–37.8%. In that case, Clinton would have had 34% and Perot would have won.

            • I know that I voted for Perot. He was the first politician that I had seen that talked plainly and made alot of sense! I miss his charts. LOL

            • Daisy:

              Yeah, that was good. Saturday Night Live had a field day with his charts.

              But if you miss the illustrations, you can still watch Netanyahu!!

        • I believe that we should place ourselves in this reality and here we have Fox News. In my opinion the Republican doctrine is long dead and totally inadequate to the problems the world is facing today. However I do not see any third party being able to push themselves up the ladder because there are lots of interests, lots of money and things like Fox News.

          The historic example you gave is just that.

    • Constitution was never enough, this is why we have the Bill of Rights. When you advocate the return to origins you should be aware that the origins were not that bright to begin with. In the meantime the world evolved. I am going to see a doctor not a voodoo priest. I do not have any nostalgia for the past, especially not for a past where black and women were slaves.

      I’m not saying those principles aren’t good. I’m saying that randomly citing from various people’s writings do not address the issue at hand: these elections. Also the Burke quote is rather ethical and sound very much like Seneca, which is boring. What in your opinion the “good people” should do? Vote for a guy that has no chance and nobody knows? You are a dreamer I guess…

  35. Everyone is complaining about what Obama said he would do when he first came into term, anyone with sense would know that all that Bush cause when he was in office could not be turned around in just 4 years, so be real with yourself. It’s about where Obama trying to go and he has made progress. Obama has my vote again.

    • Seem to be a lot of o-tards speaking out. Too bad they have no idea what is going on besides the pacifying lies of the liberal media sources, like ap, cnn, npr, nytimes, and all the rest. It’s sad they are going to be the ruin of this great republic as they allow tyrannical and socialist programs to increase their chokehold on the hard-working American taxpayers. At least we’ll have Solyndra and unlimited welfare-cash and for all the incompetent blithering morons when the economy collapses on us all. At least we will be singing kum-ba-ya when the beautiful arab spring rages into a hellfire bent on America’s destruction (hello, Benghazi). Way to have your priorities straight, keeping up on Modern Warfare and your 300 facebook friends while ‘Rome’ burns to the ground. You can keep your self-righteous indignation and idealism; conservatives and independents will continue to rely on logic and historical proofs to indicate the results of foolish utopian ideas and ‘fairness’.

      • Prudence:

        Did it occur to you that while you were complaining about so-called “o-tards” not knowing the facts that you didn’t offer a single fact to back up your “r-tard” message?

  36. Nate, hope you start a new thread alerting all that tonight a TRUE DEBATE will be held — so people can see Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party make mincemeat of the BO and its twin, the Mitt.

    • Nate: I second Surfisher’s motion. Let’s have a chance to discuss a program on which the candidates actually SAY something.

      • Goethe Behr—

        Nate promised that today he’ll post all the info on tonight’s only REAL DEBATE between real humans — so the people would finally have a chance to hear Gary Johnson (but seems that he was instructed otherwise — and you know these creeps can make their threats come true).

  37. It is not about who won the debate, it is about who is going to help people. At the end of the day, it does not matter what other people are doing in other countries, if we cannot fix ourselves (economy). Both have some good ideas and some bad ideas. At the end of the day it is politics and mostly they care about they get out of it. I wish they really listen to people and do what is right for the people (which is the day to day stuff) and has nothing to do about middle east or other countries.
    But having said that at least Obama is clear in what is saying, Romney seems to be lost completely. He either agrees to what Obama says (in that case what is the use of him competing) or keeps on changing his position on about everything. The quality of a leader is to be clear in mind and execution. I think he got it easy (being rich) and does not know what common people need.

    • Surfisher:

      I gave you an itemized list already, so now I’ll give an impression.

      It is very difficult for a challenger to talk about foreign policy, because he can’t have all the facts. Even so, I think Romney fumbled badly. He kept agreeing on almost everything.

      There were key moments.

      One was the totally ignorant comment about “genocide,” showing that Romney (a) doesn’t know the meaning of the word, and (b) does not believe in free speech.

      Another was his ludicrous attempt to sound like the “peace candidate” after being a rabid NeoCon lapdog all year. Even last night, he talked about beefing up the military, sending them everywhere, controlling the world, and keeping people from having what THEY want. Totally contradictory.

      Romney’s use of the term “bad guys” meant he WANTS to be in a league with Bush. And that includes his silly assertion that “geopolitical foe” is somehow not the same thing as “enemy.”

      The only complaint I have about Obama’s performance is that he used the canned line about Romney wanting to go back to the cold war politics of the 1980s, the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s. While I think it was spot-on, I don’t like recited lines.

      • Goethe Behr — thanks (for wasting 90 min of your life on these two hand-puppets) and letting me know what I didn’t miss (the idiocy of two arrogant subhumans trying to sound human)!

  38. reading some of these comments, all I can think is…I really hope you dummies aren’t voting. is your intelligence level somewhat similar to the president’s? shut up then. and don’t vote, please, stay home and bitch

  39. Mr. Obama was accused of having traveled around and apologized to various countries in the beginning of his term as president. Can someone please tell me why it would be a bad idea? It’s actually we, the rest of the world, who have suffered under the usa’s reign of terror.

  40. VOTING for the lesser of two evils — still gets you evil!

    The BO creature wants to destroy our Freedoms and our Nation!

    But, If Mitt gets into the White House — expect An American Tragedy!

    Mormon Mitt won’t allow Catholic Ryan to be anything but his doormat (to be disposed of when the time comes).

    His 5 Mormon Sons are getting groomed to take over…and create a Dynasty of little Mormon Mitts for decades to come!

    Now, that is truly scary!

    • Surfisher:

      Gary Johnson represents the things that BOTH the other candidates won’t say. Thus, he would take equally from them. Therefore, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote against both parties, without helping either of them.

  41. I am not am american but its so clear how much OBAMA has tried to fixed your nasty economy he inherited. DO you remember the collapse of your own mortgage homes?? financial collapse, general motor/ford… Obama saved the nation, while everyone said he did the wrong thing to bailout your automobile sector…
    Your stock market now is at all time high!

    We don’t hate american’s anymore due to your current foreign policies….like we used to… american has bad reputation..eversince bush

    If you can’t see all this…. NO wonder you can’t see thru what Mitt Romney says… he sounded LOST most of the time… twisting his words to suit his viewers… 1st, 2nd and 3rd debate.. Its so disgusting for an american to vote for a guy who says something else during the leak of video, calling american people VICTIMS!!!!
    shows clearly that Romney doesn’t have principle towards his people Hence how he is going to keep his words once you vote him into THE office….??????

    May you SEE clearly on the day you vote…access properly of your PAST!!!! you are lucky to get as far ahead now.. obama is a good decision maker..

    Come by to other countries for a visit and find out… come and compare leaders… see if obama has better principle and care for his people… versus other president representing their countries… Your president willing to take a higher tax himself to save/help middle class…!!!!! (fyi… I know our president will not do that…)

    It take more than courage to do that… He is definitely not wanting to be president to make a quick buck out of his people… See the person heart to decide… so he will always have your heart at interest..

    I wrote in to cnbc that obama did the right thing to save your automobile industry, immediately as decision was made..in 2009..just so that cnbc anchor can cut some slacks opposing the idea and criticising your own government TRYING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS created by your past presidency…

    And i shall drop this off to say what I believed should be said about your current President…

  42. Ever wonder why Danes are the happiest people in the world? When you look at the 3 breaking points in a family’s life they are
    1. Education so one can get a better job. No family goes broke trying to give their children an education.
    2. Medical coverage so one can be healthy and contribute to the national economy. No scare of losing everything to costs from a bout with cancer or heart problems.
    3. Care for the elderly so they can live and die with dignity. Help give children and grandchildren the opportunity to give as the elderly have the dignity to stay on their own.

    All Danes have the right to full education free! Classs size is 19-24 children in kindergarten to 4th. 24 to 28 for grades 5-10. High school goes up to 33. Imagine the time the teachers have to teach and reach each kid! Everyone has the right to any education as long as they have the grades. Young people can go out to work or do volunteer work to raise their education qualifications if they fall short.
    We have training for carpenters, bakers, plumbers which are 3-5 yr training programs with apprenticeships. Young people are not left to their own to find jobs with no training. Continuing training is offered to all.

    We have free health care. Each town hires and supports a certain number of doctors for their citizens. When a patient comes for an appointment their medical card is their social security card. That means when you go up to get medicine from the pharmacy or see a specialist or visit a hospital all the medical information can be assessed. Hospitals are not competing for business but being designated specialist in cancer, or heart or research. A lot less expenditure on duplicating very expensive equipment.

    No cost for nursing homes. No one wants to go there,so until people cannot take care of themselves the town social system helps them stay in their homes. Visiting nurses, home help to clean or deliver meals. This care helps the elderly’s family balance working with being a care helper.

    All these crises points are covered in the Danish taxes. Americans keep saying they are the best country in the world. It is important to lay out what makes people the most productive and happiest. It is to educate, keep healthy, and support people after they have worked a full life. People keep saying Obama supports ‘social’ programs. But these ‘social’ programs result in a happier more productive population. Investing in education makes companies more able to expand.

    I do not understand how Romney’s taking his money offshore to avoid taxes can run for President. Paying 14% tax is less than a teacher or factory worker. He earns a lot more than that. No wonder the rich are richer in America and it has a huge number of poor.

  43. Roney keeps changing his stance on these issues and Obama has pointed out exactly when and where he has lied. Dont be fooled: Vote for Obama.

    • Don’t be fooled by either of them. You’re just as blind as the rest of this foolish country. Another four years of Obama will lead this country into a tailspin, just like it would with Romney. They’re both bought out politicians and corrupted beyond belief.

      Instead of saying vote for Obama just remember this..

      We are Anonymous.
      We are Legion.
      We do not forgive.
      We do not forget.
      Expect us.

      • Anonymous:

        Love yer poetry. I always thought they were attributing verses to unknown authors. Greensleeves, one of my favorites–thanks!

  44. What’s the problem anyway? The Iranians already have their ruling Mullahs. So let us Americans get our ruling Mormon Pastor.

  45. Bailing out companies that sends their work to foreign countries makes no sense. Fix this economy so high school students like myself don’t have to be the ones paying for it.

  46. Yes I am an outsider who watched the complete debate with patience. If someone asks me of the stands taken by the poltitians in the debate, I’d just say that there was a president who explained why he did certain things and then there was the other guy who just repeats what ever the president says. Funny coz in my country never will two political leaders of opposing political parties come to an agreement so easily. Wow America! And the guy critizising America or rather the president being apologetic to certain people, WOW! I had an image of America rethinking some of its past policies, esp after the nobel prize. So you are telling its a bad thing or that you would take the arrogance to a next level. It was my belief and gathering that a good number of people in America was thinking that somewhere they had taken some bad decisions. So was I wrong? Do you want to be the Big brother watching over the world or to take a leading role with discretion helping some others when they are in difficulty? And as a matter of fact your foreign policy is important, if not for you, for all of us who are outsiders coz we have to face the blessings or terror of that. A presidential candidate with no veiws or talks about the same thing he knows whe asked about other things!!!! Way to go!! I was expecting a little bit more sensible polititian to run against Obama. As everone else I am also in some ways disappointed with Obama, but for sure the other guy is not the answer for that.

  47. Obama is such a amazing, graceful, and persuasive speaker! I love listening to him speak… It reminds me of Adolf Hitler. Just like hitter he will be able to take over a nation without force, simply because of his speaking talents. Well that and the sweet phone he gave out to the poor… I’m sure over the next for years he will consider a job for the poor instead of a free hand out. Wait that would strengthen the nation he wants to kneel at his feet.

      • Bedtime? Ha! I’m jobless (thanks Obama) I have nothing better to do then spend your hard earned tax money (that is freely taken from the working class) and given to people to lazy or dumb to find a job like myself (thanks again Obama). Lol i love this! I’m to dumb to get a job but smart enough to know Obama will just keep giving me yours 🙂

        • Brian, you obviously don’t understand what you’re writing – jobless and to(o) dumb, eh? Well then here’s some useful trivia for you; blame the architects of capitalism (with their weapons of mass deception – the mainstream media) for your pathetic jobless situation – these are the Repubs starting with Reagan and ending (so far) with G.W.Bush. Obviously, due to your own (to) dumb state, you can’t grasp the magnitude of mess that Mr Bush & Co. left behind in the US and the world, not to mention the elaborate tax cuts for the super rich (read much?) and a completely deregulated financial market in the USA (gun slingers and shoot-out in Dodge city kind of place). Under the Repub presidency, corporations that outsource jobs from the USA are generously subsidized by getting massive tax breaks and bail-outs. Now you’re wondering why you don’t have a job? think much?

  48. We are Anonymous.
    We are Legion.
    We do not forgive.
    We do not forget.
    Expect us..

    Change is coming people, open your eyes to the corruption and lies these two “leaders” spew. The government thinks that whatever they spit out will be eaten up by the populous without question. Take a stand! Ask the questions that our “leaders” don’t want you too.

  49. I believe that Mitt Romney has this Countries best interest at heart. At the end of the day, money has nothing to do with how you feel about what you did to make this Country great again.
    He has a lot more to show than Obama, Mitt Romney takes his challenges very serious, he will not back down, could You imagine, if he does to this Country, what he did With the Olympics, The budget would be balanced. Obama uses the excuse, I only had 4 years. Who would you like to have next to you in a dangerous situation, Chuck Norris, or a person who makes excuses that they were not trained, and needed 4 years.

    • Tony:

      Yeah, let’s look at big spending, debt loving Willard Mitt Romney.

      When he was at Bain, it was typical for him to borrow 95% of the purchase of a company, tie that debt TO the company, and pocket most of it.

      Here’s a very clear, fun to watch explanation:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENd0x4bqqVI

      Watch it, if you dare. It’s only 9 minutes long, and you really only have to watch between minutes 2 and 4 to get the idea.

      OK, so we know that Bain floated on debt, stuck companies with that debt, and floated away while the company sank under the weight.

      Then, to pad his resume, his Mormon buddies in Salt Lake City, gave him the Olympics. What did he do? HE GOT AN UNHEARD-OF $400 MILLION DOLLAR **BAIL OUT** FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Did it pay off? Some say it did. Some say it didn’t. But the point is that “big spending” is what Romney is all about.

      Did I mention that he was drawing a $100,000 annual salary from Bain for three years when he claimed he had NO connection with the company? Where did he think the checks were coming from??

      OK, so then, Mr. Big Spender “bought” his governorship in a small, liberal northeastern state. He spent SIX MILLION DOLLARS that he happened to have lying around.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

      Not illegal, not even “wrong,” per se, but it shows how much of a “big spender” he is. Money means nothing to him–which is why he thought nothing of making the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry in the GOP debates–money means nothing to him.

      That’s why he spent up to SEVENTEEN (17) TIMES as much as his opponents, to buy the nomination.

      And now that he has the nomination, it’s YOUR money he’s promising–with new giveaway programs to every possible constituency–including military spending the military does not even WANT.

      On top of that, more tax cuts, which means geometrically higher debt.

      Oh, wait, he said he’d cut spending to Big Bird to pay for everything. He refuses to explain ANYTHING else. A Wall Street Journal article says, “now we know absolutely NOTHING about Mitt Romney’s tax plan.”

      But I digress. The point is that Romney’s ENTIRE life has been about big spending, and he has thought nothing at all of borrowing 95%–pocketing the money–then sticking someone else with the debt.

      Do you REALLY think we an trust this guy with our federal budget??

      • I forgot to mention that he has not bothered to find a job for FIVE years, and just feels ENTITLED to become President of the United States, up from being long-term unemployed. I thought he said such people were shiftless losers?

        And you want to give THIS guy the federal checkbook??

  50. A lot of mention on protecting Americans and “our biggest ally” Israel etc. by KILLING Bin Laden and going after those who kill innocent Americans, fighting for peace and human rights etc. etc.

    I wonder what the Bahraini people, that are being killed by their own government with “support” from the United States, are thinking . . .

    The Muslim Brotherhood was ELECTED after the president was overthrown but still, it’s not a satisfactory election because there’s a conflict of interest with the United States . . .

    How about the legitimacy of the Yemeni election . . . ? The President of Yemen must be one popular SOB to get 99.80% of the people’s votes . . . They must be all related or something . . .

    Before America butts into international affairs, it needs to get its priorities straight . . . or does it already have set priorities (securing all oil producing nations and neighboring countries to get cheap oil while the locals pay the price? Why isn’t America invading Canada? It has the world’s 3rd largest oil reserve . . . )

    The “closest ally” has violated human rights laws against Palestinians and has violated U.N resolutions and possesses the 10th strongest military in the world thanks to U.S. “support” whereas Palestinians possess . . . children with rocks? militia armed with smuggled firearms or that which they purchased in the black market . . ?

    I’m gonna stop . . . the list is never ending . . .

    One last thing . . . America should really focus on education . . .
    It has enough military bases occupying every continent . . .

    • I agree with you completely. My history says “The U.S. is similar to a really annoying rich kid that complains about not having enough money to buy everything that it doesn’t have”. Moral of the story the U.S. is rolling in cash and more likely than not it will say that way no matter what.

  51. i as so many americans have been forced out of my own country due to obama´s lack of leadership in the united states , americans can not stay in america if there is no job for them , and that´s not even saying anything about all the homes that americans lost also due to obama´s failures, i say anybody is better than obama. NO MORE OBAMA.

    • Empty words, flatus vocis.

      Where did you go? Just curious… because only communist countries have “jobs” for everybody. Where is that dreamland with candies for dickheads as yourself that emigrate from United States?

      Before you answer take a look moron:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

      France has 10.2 unemployment rate
      UK has 7.9
      Italy 10.2
      Spain 25.1
      Canada 7.3
      Only Germany and Australia have some better rates from the countries that count: 5.2 and 5.4.

      So where did you go?

      Leaving your country for lack of leadership… I guess you left during the bush administration and you are confused. Take your pills.

      • Despite the global credit crunch and recent crisis in Dubai its been reported that Dubai has the lowest unemployment rate due to high level of economic activity.

      • Word up greg!

        Seriously thou! Why would anyone wanna follow a guy like Romney when you got something like Obama as an alternative?

        If someone would pleas share a perspective on that to help me understand?

        Obama strikes me as being perfectly clear and trustworthy on many levels. Bodylanguage, rhetorics, eyecontact, focus, and he is honest, brave, emphatic, confident, accurate in his debate style.

        Romney is in my mind equlliant to old junk, crap and other waist. Waist can always be put to use somewhere, thats important to remember…. What do you call someone who is trying to get in bed with everyone but are unable to make clear promisses? Thats the kind of guy Romney is. Not the guy to lead a country…

            • Only watched the guy a few times years ago but I remember he did say, “don’t take my word for it look it up”

            • Billy:

              Yeah, me, too. But I soon realized what he did is start with a conclusion, and then look for “evidence.” In philosophical terms, it’s “begging the question.”

              If you go ONLY to the sources he cherry-picks, he looks like he knows what he’s talking about, but if you read JUST a little more, you see that he’s full of crap.

            • He’s rich and very successful and I don’t even know what he does. I would never call anyone who has more money than me insane and if the had less I may only think it but would never say it. I know I had a lot more luck than skill so I try to cut everyone a lot of slack. As for my daughter, she is indeed nuts and will continue to be until she pays me back for that trip to Egypt she took on my debit card.

            • Heard lot’s of people call him crazy but I need a “he said …………and the truth is” before I pass judgement. Easy to do with Romney and Obama though. Neither is crazy, far from it.

            • Billy:

              OK, the current example is Beck’s latest hissy fit, claiming that sequestration was Obama’s idea. It wasn’t, but even if it were, what difference does it make where it came from?

              Somehow the budget has to be settled, and it’s not being helped by Glenn Beck crying jags.

            • Budget, a purple haze, people talk but they don’t understand it. They know what happens if they can’t find work though. This election is all about jobs and entitlements. (food stamps and cell phones)

        • The cost to taxpayers for the failure of solar panel company Solyndra may be much higher than the $535 million dollar figure quoted. Fisker car company anothe 500+ million……

          And when somebody does not do the job, we
          got to let them go. CE

          • Billy:

            Don’t fall for that. While it’s too bad that Solyndra went under, face it, that happens when you are trying something new. The ONLY reason Sonlyndra was not a huge success is that the Chinese dumped cheap panels on the market. Not much you can do about that.

            Secondly, only 1.4% (ONE-POINT-FOUR PERCENT) of the Recovery Act went to companies that went under. Considering that we were, I agree, taking a risk on the future, we should put it into perspective.

            Third, of the 63 clean energy companies we invested in, only 5 failed–that’s 8% (EIGHT PERCENT).

            That sounds like a lot, right? Could Romney do better? A full 22% (TWENTY-TWO PERCENT) of Willard’s Bain companies went bankrupt.

            • Spanish government .[3][17] According to the Photovoltaic Industry Association, several hundred photovoltaic plants may face bankruptcy.[18] Phil Dominy of Ernst & Young, comparing the feed-in tariff reductions in Germany and Italy, said “Spain stands out as an example of how not to do it.”

              So we copied Spain and guess what, we went bankrupt too. A blind man could have seen it coming.

            • Just google in Spain’s solar energy projects I’m sure you know Spain is no better off than Greece and the big money solar projects are part of the problem. Look it can’t compete against coal unless you tax the hell out of coal. A really bad move for sure.

            • Billy:

              They sell to Germany. That says something to me.

              This is from Wiki:

              Spain is one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine. In 2008 the Spanish government committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010 and by 2020 expects the installed solar generating capacity of 10,000 megawatts (MW).[1] Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 percent of this output to Germany.[2]

            • Spain is no better off than Greece. Solar can’t compete against coal because you cant store it like you can wind. So you need to build a coal plant next to the solar energy plant. Just not practical.

    • *snicker* Have you seen the stats before Obama? Could you have done a better job? Could George W bush or romney have done anything better?

      • No way but putting the Clintons back in the White House might not have been so bad an idea. Don’t know if Gore would have been able to screw it up as much as Bush did. But a black politician from Chicago was just not the way to go. Hey there are a lot of guys out there with proven track records that can do the job. It’s regulations that cost jobs so just roll them back until you get the unemployment rate to where you want it.

  52. It doesn’t really matter who wins the elections. One thing is clear: a couple of billion dollars (yes, BILLION) have been wasted on campaigning, money that could be put to use for the economic, infrastructural and social growth of the U.S.A. I guess we are just too dumb to smell the crap and too lazy to duck when the shit hit the fan 5 years back. YEAH, let’s do some blaming now…. helps our beers and burgers go down better with the junk on TV. Whoever thinks that the systematic mess that was initiated by the corporations, the banksters and the smirking 1% can be cleaned in 4 years is a joker.

  53. I have read, listened to and researched very heavily on all topics. At this time I am mainly looking at the USA. I work hard and like many Americans am struggling just to keep up with all the rising prices. I was raised a “strict” democrat and, until this year, have always voted “with the party”. I do not look at the “party” anymore but at who/what is going to actually look at our constitution and do the best they can here at home. I am surrounded by illegal immigrants using our welfare system and driving $50,000.00 vehicles; taking jobs with illegal documentation; demanding religious rights in our schools when our children’s religious rights were taken away…foreign policy is important, however; the USA needs to become united and strong again before anything else really matters.

    • Amen Randi! Unfortunately the Democratic party has been hijacked by radicals who want to implode this country from the inside out, and in the manner that the general populace never sees it coming.

      I am hoping that Mitt can turn things around, so that we stop the hemorrhaging and we can start concentrating on fixing the gridlock and the way that Capital Hill does business.

      We need to demand that Congress have the same retirement/healthcare system that they have imposed on the American citizens and to do away with antiquated laws that are no longer relevant. Case in point, while it was necessary to “Give” retirement benefits to stay-at-home wives in the 1930’s (allow women to draw 1/2 of their husband’s benefit), that law should be done away with, if things are to be made equitable and social security to remain solvent. Unless a person is “vested” into the system (meaning that they have paid 10 years (40 quarters) into the system, they should not be allowed to collect! Same goes with dependents. Why should tax payers give a retired man who has children under the age of 18, more benefits, just because he fathered children late in life and now can’t support them?

      Bills should be readable at a sixth grade level and are PURE in content. No earmarks; kickbacks; pork; or anything UN-RELATED to the bill should be allowed in. All decisions regarding what the states need should be voted on by the residents of each state and the majority vote is what counts.

      We tax payers need to start holding Congress accountable for their actions and PROTEST when they act recklessly or make decisions that directly benefit them and hurt the majority of the people. Campaign revenue should have a cap on it and any excess should be turned over to the state colleges for distribution.

      Common sense has left our Government, and we have allowed the two-party system to dodge accountabilty and to govern in the best interest of its politicians and not the American people! Native & Natural Born Citizens should GET first priority on public housing; education; health care; food & utility support; and the right to LIMIT immigration UNTIL our own are cared for first!

      • Daisy, you are saying the right words, but you attribute them to the wrong party. I totally agree with what you are saying, but I am not sure who holds hostages who…

    • Randi, not only democrats are looking at the constitution to change things, republicans are doing it too. Take for example the pro-life activists that want to change constitution in a way where a fetus is a person with rights and women have no longer the right to chose, even if the pregnancy it’s a result of rape or incest, even if the pregnant person is a 12 year girl. In the same spirit on the flip side in-vitro fertilization is denied to women that cannot have babies otherwise. This is an example of constitutional changes that are profound anti-liberty as the liberty starts with the ownership of yourself.

      Republicans paint themselves as defenders of constitution and founders values, but this is just a kitsch on a hotel wall. They want changes to constitution as well that go well beyond what regular republican folks will admit.

      I do not even want to speak about romney. He is saying one thing today, the opposite tomorrow and the propaganda machine works anyway. But if you look to the facts you must notice at least a few odd things: he is not Christian, but mormon; he is abusing of tax code and avoid paying taxes by keeping part of his gains offshore; as bain president he destroyed more companies than republicans will admit; job creation? maybe in china and india. his political views? bush’s view, but now as the war in iraq is so unpopular he dares to say that he is for peace. military? he wants a bigger fleet! This is insane, the fleet is the last thing army needs, it will tell you any army guy. economic plan? a mystery as nobody knows specifics, just spit figures catered to have impact on people, but with no support in reality. Patriot? What is patriotic in avoid paying taxes? What is patriotic in running to France when the country called him to serve? A guy who refused to serve his country and a mormon is now the leader of the republican heard. It is unbelievable!

      Romney simply has no moral values and he is all over the map. Selling himself like a whore to be supported by people that didn’t want him from the very beginning it’s not negotiating, it’s not unity, it’s prostitution. These favors will have to be paid back, guess who will have to suffer. Donald Trump? Clint Eastwood? You probably know that Romney was the 3rd choice of republicans and even fox news was at that time against him. after that they fall in line.

      You don’t have to vote with the heard, this is the Republican’s way of doing things. You can actually think and vote using your own judgement.

      • I just have to point out a fact you have wrong in this post… First you should know I am NOT mormon, however i did study the religion. depending on your point of view calling them not Christian is incorrect. They believe in Christ and the bible… unless you think those two things make you not a “Christian”…. the main difference i found in my study is the fact they believe in another group of books that have been grouped together and named after one of them. these books are from the same time frame as the bible but written by people on the american content. the books contain those peoples point of view… mostly the book is meant to back up the facts stated in the bible. bla bla bla… ANYWAY i would say by all definition to of the word christian they more than fit the Criteria. i would much rather have a MORMON in office than whatever Obama is.

  54. To be honest i think both did a fairly good job at the debate. The problem with Obama is that people now have a record on him and his policies. He keeps trashing Bush as the reason for his lack of performance (ie – it was so bad this is the best anyone could do….), but seriously, not bragging on the bush era, but has anyone gone back and looked at the numbers over all 8 years of bush? They are available on government sites. Either of Bush’s terms were way better than Obama’s, numerically speaking.

    If Bush’s policies were so bad, why don’t Obama’s policies work? People say, well we’re down to 7.8% unemployment Obama’s policies work…see! But then even in the worst of the Bush years, it was never that high. How is it that Obama says we don’t want to go back to that? I do. Shoot, I’d go back to the Clinton years, Bush Sr., or even Reagan. You have to go all the way back to Carter and short-termer Ford to get numbers as bad as Obama’s.

    And coincidentally, when was the last time we had an embassy attacked…the Carter years. Partially a sign of the times, but then it somehow took Obama almost 2 weeks to own up to the fact that the act of terror was actually an attack by Al Qaeda. How is that?? Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike ought to see this for what it is. His whole term is now being summed up before our eyes – high gas prices, record levels of consistently high unemployment, inflation around the corner, auto-bail outs. Its amazing looking back at the conversation in the Carter years and how the same things are happening again now, only difference is Obama passed the universal healthcare plan the Democrats have wanted since Wilson.

    Good debater, but really there’s no substance there. Its time to let him go…

    • Very well said Josh! To be the president is just not Obama’s cup of tea, the proof is in his last four years. He is a great speaker, smart man, but not the leader we need.

    • Josh, I disagree with you on so many levels.

      I will start with the observation that on Obama’s watch an embassy was attacked. In case you forgot, on bush’s watch we had 9/11. So your sneaky remark is pointless.

      What are the numbers you are talking about of bush era? The war in iraq is a dream? The fall of wall street? Maybe the worst economical crisis in the modern history of america… I must have dreamed all of these.

      clinton time, yes, i can see that… but bush? c’mon, don’t be such desperate…

      • I agree, the embassy comment was weak. However, it is true that it took Obama 2 weeks to acknowledge it as anything more than a riot caused by an American video. The media has even admitted that there was no riot, in fact the videos (they say) show nothing at all, just a direct attack….incompetence, or something worse by the president and his administration.

        Here are numbers:

        You can get these numbers from this government site (the bureau of labor statistics):

        http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

        Carter – 6.5% (you can watch unemployment start to rise month over month in the last year of his presidency)
        Reagan – 7.5% (unemployment continued to rise until 1983…got all the way up to 10%, then started a steady decline that went all the way to the middle of Bush, SR. and was down to 5.3% his last full month in office)
        Bush, SR – 6.3%
        Clinton – 5.2%
        Bush, Jr – 5.3%
        Obama – 9%

        Average Annual Deficit adjusted to inflation, and in the billions of dollars: (the site didn’t source their numbers, but they’re accurate with what i recall from other sources…not a gov’t site so i won’t post here)

        Carter – $186
        Reagan – $363.5
        Bush, Sr – $399
        Clinton – $217.25
        Bush, Jr – $332.25
        Obama – 1,323.25

        The point of these numbers show that no presidency going back to Carter has performed this badly. My point is, that if Bush had such bad policies…why doesn’t it show in the numbers? Things started declining in 2008…after 8 years…if all polices were bad, why did it take 8 years to show up? If Obama’s policies are so great, why after 4 years are they still not working? Unemployment during Bush’s terms was consistently low. In fact his terms set a record for the most straight months without a recession. But take the focus off of bush, pick any other president on record, has any president’s term done this badly…no, the numbers speak for themselves.

        My question is, how can obama say he doesn’t want to go to the failed policies of the past? Everyone has had better numbers than him…even Carter! Seriously, things had been pretty good from the 80’s all the way to 2008, that’s over 20 years (what bad policies?). You’d think if they were bad policies things would have gone wrong way before 2008.

        The president saying the economic crisis as a result of failed policies of the past is a ruse. It enable’s him to say, this isn’t my fault don’t blame me. But he doesn’t have anyone to point to, seriously everyone has performed better than him, everyone…well everyone going back to the 1940’s which is as far as records are easily accessible.

        Its time to let him go…

        • Josh how long did it take Bush to do anything about the Katrina victims???? You look for God in a president I see. Have you served in the military? I’m sure there are a lot of very grateful men and women glad to be home from a senseless war…Obama have you lost your home? I am sure those people who got a chance to stay in theirs are grateful…Obama….Well Bin Laden is no longer a threat…again Obama. he came into office with a bunch of BS on his plate and he is working on it. Sorry things were not good while Bush was in office that is just dreaming.

    • I see what your saying, but you have to consider for the unemployment the great reflux that came with him pulling back in all the troops, if they stayed we’d have good unemployment percentages then now, BUT we would still be fighting war, getting our own troops killed in a battle that was caused by Bush, Now that is the only time i’ll mention it to keep on point, the point is that the soldiers still needed work because they couldnt file for pention (not all that is) and with this they were hired by some companies, but they still have to have some unemployed increasing the unemployment, and the embassies being attacked was caused by a racist that had access to a video camera, the internet, and a computer that allowed him to edit the video making the religious figure depicted as petifiles and such, so dont put the embassy attacks on obama for the actions of this one person.

      • Hey we had a few troops come home after the 2nd WW and things didn’t bust, they boomed. The unemployment issue can be solved overnight, just roll back on the regulations a bit. Regs don’t promote business, they kill it.

        • Billy:

          Yeah, but that was an entirely different situation. For one thing, Europe had destroyed itself, and so they had to turn to US to supply stuff. In addition, we had the Marshall Plan, that gave our corporations even more money.

          The troops were not coming back when we already had an unemployment problem.

          Not to mention that we laid off THREE percent of our entire government workforce at the same time. Nobody has ever done that before.

          • Gary Johnson canned about 1200 state workers when he took office and it was boom time.
            Mitt wants to add 100,000 more for bust time. Like I posted they can solve the problem overnight, but the voters want more of the same so nothing is going to change for a while anyhow. A short while.

  55. Did you guys even WATCH ALL THE DEBATES??? Any reason why Romney keeps changing his VIEWS? Keeps Changing every time. He never tells you HOW he is going to do things and never answers the questions. Maybe you missed Clinton’s speech. What we have here is a lazy group of voters who do not want to research for themselves. I’m sure a white guy who changes his mind when it suits him is better than Obama. This is just what I see. If you disagree, you are just too scared to admit that we are still in the dark ages. So to those who are voting. Make your vote on what you have INVESTIGATED YOURSELF, not what someone tells you. Above all else, participate in this election and VOTE.

      • Billy: Do you think so? My impression is that it will be high turnout. After all, the “other guy” is the devil incarnate, if you believe the two billion dollars of ads. . .

    • So, here are some numbers from the bureaou of labor statistic going back to Jimmy Carter. This is an overall presidency average. You can get these numbers from this government site (the bureau of labor statistics):

      http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

      Carter – 6.5% (you can watch unemployment start to rise month over month in the last year of his presidency)
      Reagan – 7.5% (unemployment continued to rise until 1983…got all the way up to 10%, then started a steady decline that went all the way to the middle of Bush, SR. and was down to 5.3% his last full month in office)
      Bush, SR – 6.3%
      Clinton – 5.2%
      Bush, Jr – 5.3%
      Obama – 9% (the numbers speak for themselves)

      Average Annual Deficit adjusted to inflation, and in the billions of dollars: (the site didn’t source their numbers, but they’re accurate with what i recall from other sources…not a gov’t site so i won’t post here)

      Carter – $186
      Reagan – $363.5
      Bush, Sr – $399
      Clinton – $217.25
      Bush, Jr – $332.25
      Obama – 1,323.25 (Yes, that’s right he’s the only president we’ve ever had spend up deficits in the trillions of dollars)

      So, the worst unemployment numbers in almost 40 years…actually they’re the worst since they’ve been tracking. It goes all the way back to the 1940’s, and this is the worst 4 year stint we’ve had on record. The highest deficit spending of any president going back almost 40 years (i didn’t go back further).

      That is some research that says, its time for him to go…

      I’m just wondering exactly what failed policies of the past Obama is talking about not wanting to turn back to, seems like everyone has had more effective policies than him. Maybe he was talking about King George III, before 1776? I mean, seriously…

      • Josh:

        The propagandists want to compare the economy of the last four years with just ANY other four years. They want you to totally forget the PANIC of the free-fall of 2008.
        UNEMPLOYMENT

        That free-fall can ONLY be compared with 1929. And what happened when the new president was faced with the stock market crash and free-fall economy? Hoover let the unemployment go from 3% when he entered office to 25% at the end of his term.

        Compare THAT with Obama’s unemployment, which is lower than when he started. In fact, it never got as high as it was under Reagan.

        STOCK MARKET

        What else? The stock market under Hoover went to ONE-TENTH of its value. If that had happened this time, the market would have gone from 13,000 to 1,300.

        Compare THAT with Obama’s stock market, which has more than DOUBLED in value–to the all-time high area.

        CORPORATE PROFITS

        What about corporate profits? Under Hoover, corporate profits dropped precipitously, and did not reach 1929 levels until 1941. It took a WORLD WAR to bring back to where we started.

        Compare that with Obama’s corporate profits. This year, the Fortune 500 set ALL-TIME RECORD HIGHS, easily beating the boom year record in 2006.

        YOU AND I are not sharing, because the new economic system since the late 1970s is designed to concentrate maximum wealth in minimum number of hands. THAT IS, it just doesn’t “trickle down” to you and me. That’s what Obama would like to change–go give us all opportunity. But when he tries, people scream “socialism” and “redistribution,” when he really wants us to share OPPORTUNITY, not take their ill-gotten gains.

        The question should not be “are you better off” than you were before the crash–the question should be WHAT IF Obama had not been there to keep us from catastrophe?

        • Hey Goethe –

          There have been worse crashes since the great depression, we were just able to recover. I don’t forget how bad things were during that time. The point is that Obama hasn’t effectively dealt with the issue. Nor does he seem to want to. Similar to Bush getting overly caught up in war’s and not focusing enough on the state of the economy, Obama put too much focus on his health plan and not on recovery.

          It simply doesn’t stand to reason that the solution to fixing an economy is to take money out of it (raise taxes). It doesn’t stand to reason, that the way to a prosperous society is to have high government spending.

          For the unemployment numbers, the government doesn’t keep track going back to the depression.

          For the high corporate profits combined with high unemployment – this would be the first time in history that it happened and you have to ask yourself why. Why is it for the first time in our history that when corporate profits are high, the companies don’t hire people? What is unique about these last 4 years?

          One thing is that businesses aren’t comfortable hiring people and investing in the future, because they have a president who thinks like you do. He, and the dems in congress, think that the profits haven’t been justly shared and are intending to use the force of government to implement their view of social justice. This makes companies unwilling to take risk, because the business climate is already risky.

          The crash of ’08 was due to bad policies implemented by one party, that the other party was too cowardly to repeal. Specifically, EPA rules on energy production and also housing rules which pushed companies to give home loans to people. Some like to blame the banks for the bad mortgage deals, but it takes 2 to tango. Add to that they way the Fed manages inflation and here’s what you have:

          1. People with low income buying homes on low variable interest rates and under various programs (program started under Carter that the republicans pointed to as a problem, but didn’t have the courage to correct)
          2. Banks bundling things together and selling the mortgage returns as investments (something that wasn’t done correctly)
          3. Because of low interest rates everyone was buying and building homes such that in many places home prices sky-rocketed at an unsustainable rate (we got to record home ownership during the Bush years because of this)
          4. High gas prices caused by our government putting plants, animals, and ‘dirt preservation’ as more important than people (this is proven in that as soon as Bush removed the moratorium on offshore drilling the gas prices dropped for a year straight down to less than $2 per gallon….Obama put it back and where are the gas prices?)
          5. High gas prices caused what looked to be inflation, but it really wasn’t
          6. The Fed responds to inflation by raising interest rates
          7. An accounting rule for banks which required them to value real estate as zero value in certain cases

          Then what happened?:

          1. Gas prices limited the disposable income of most Americans, making house payments hard to make
          2. High fuel prices additionally limited disposable income of people, making house payments harder to make
          3. Fed raises interest rates to stave off what they saw as inflation, making house payments for many still even harder to make and also caused the housing bubble to burst
          4. People walked away from homes they could no longer afford, consequently the bundled mortgages people were invested in suddenly lost value, and the burst bubble made people under water and many more walked away from houses they could not sell

          So this was a problem caused almost completely by government (both democrat and republican) and people with bad character (you don’t just walk away from a home, you do your best to keep your word to repay the loan, even if it is to a bank and not your neighbor). And what was Bush’s response? give billions to the banks. When it didn’t work, what did Obama do? Gave billions more to the banks, and then turned around and talked about the unfairness of rich/poor distribution and make social justice promises.

          So, what would you do if said to you, you just have too much money and too much income, we’re going to do something about that? What would you do personally? Would you be cautious about spending and the future, would you buy a bigger house? Would you buy a new car, or fix your old? This is the dilemma of business today. Sure things may be going fine, but due to a hostile president and congress, who knows what the future holds. So I don’t blame businesses for hanging on to what they got, because they want to be ready for whatever comes….like ObamaCare which isn’t fully implemented yet.

          This president has not addressed these issues, and has created more issues with high spending.

          What you said about the common man (you and i) not sharing, is simply not true. the wealth of the average american has been continually increasing since the early 80’s. The average wages have been increasing continually. Life expectancy has been going higher and higher. Look at the entertainment industry, its booming, why? because people’s essential needs are taken care of, and are able to play and have fun with the rest. That is until about 2006, when the dems got back control of congress and things started spiraling from there because of their hostile business policies and social justice mentality.

          Obama doesn’t want to ‘share opportunity’ he wants to ‘force equal outcome’. You can’t do that, its impossible – you end up closing off opportunity to the ones you want to help and eliminating those who are in the places people want to be. This youtube video explains it pretty well:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCnxOICRtLE&list=PL8F943378EECAFE6D&index=37&feature=plpp_video

          • Josh: I thought it was universally accepted that this is the worst crisis since the Great Depression. The recessions we have had since then have not been “panics.” They have just been “corrections.” The boom-bust business cycle is built into the capitalist system.

            The reason that corporations have held onto their cash is because “they can.” The ONLY time corporations spend is when they HAVE to, and the reason they HAVE to is that there is demand, and if they don’t profit from the demand, another corporation will.

            As for the housing crisis, it is NOT true that it was due to “poor people.” It was due to greedy speculators and irresponsible banks. ONE-THIRD of the houses that have been foreclosed on have been empty. That means that people who HAVE money were abusing the housing market. There was a report on two individuals in Florida who bought and sold the SAME houses, back and forth, each time paying more, and getting the bank to approve. THAT is the sort of thing that caused the housing bubble, not “poor people.”

            It is true that a lot of “poor people” have lost their homes, but why is that? It’s because unscrupulous realtors and banks talked them into it. My wife and I had college educations and professional jobs back in 1986, but when we went to the bank, we had to ask THEM what we could afford. If we didn’t know, how do you think that “poor people” would know that they are being sold something that they will put their hearts and money into–and then lose it all?

            As for “sharing the wealth,” you are wrong. The wages of average people have been going DOWN since the 1970s in REAL money. It’s too bad I can’t post the charts to show that.

            • What’s with all this cash? Last time I checked 53 trillion was owed to financial institutions. Comes a time when the American worker will be working full time just to pay the interest. What happens when there is nothing left to buy food? Food stamps?

            • Billy: Record level stock market, all-time blow-out historic corporate profits, high productivity.

              Dude, there is lots and lots and lots of cash. It’s just held by a teeny, tiny, itsy-bitsy number of hands.

            • All bubbles. What is it’s value if everyone decides to sell? About the same thing as the billions in GM bonds. Yeah to big to fail but the bond holders were too small to save. How many of those loyal GM car owners will be shopping for a GM product in the future. If I were still in the market I’d short the stock even if it were trading at $1.00.

            • Billy: Yeah, the entire economy is a shell game. Nothing ever has ANY value if no one is willing to buy it–and that includes gold. Gold has developed some value in electronics, but otherwise, what good are baubles and trinkets?

              Reminds me that my mother-in-law thought the Wise Men were idiots–bringing a baby gold. What’s a baby gonna do with gold? They should have brought food and blankets! Some wise men!

              As for GM, I disagree. They have become a truly international business, with a huge footprint in China. They cut their new labor cost in half. Cars are one thing we can’t do without.

              The funny thing is that Fiat came in to save Chrysler, but now Chrysler is the profitable part of that partnership. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

            • But GM kept its biggest liability, the pension. That alone makes the unable to compete on a level playing field. For sire I’d like to believe you on the gold but if you turn back the pages of history you will reach the back cover before gold loses its value. People have done some mighty strange things whenever gold comes on the scene. Sure feels better than a bearer bond in one’s hand.

            • Billy: I agree. For some reason, people do value gold. As long as they do, it should hold some value. From time to time you hear about a new rich vein somewhere, but I think the supply is being controlled. Just like diamonds.

              Speaking of government bonds. I looked up Obama’s wealth and MOST of it is in government bonds. If he loses, Willard ought to show him how to use money to take away other people’s money. . .

            • Romney could never come close to Obama when it comes to shafting people holding bonds.
              I was talking about the millions of people that were holding GM bonds. Back to work for most of them. Hey those people should have received at least 50 cents on the dollar not pennies.

          • OMG just can’t read all that. Obama added 5.4 trillion in debt and has nothing to show for it. And when somebody does not do the job, we
            got to let them go. CE

          • The fact is that now you may take out of context any figures and compare them with anything you want. If you put things in the historic context you will get a different reality. Bush “overly caught up in war” seems very forgettable to you, still when it comes to Obama everything deserve the capital punishment. What is the accuse? The fact that he wants to reform the healthcare system?

            You put your figures your way, maybe I want to compare the goals. For example the war in iraq you are mentioning passing by (supported by romney, now rejected) I would like to compare it with spending in education and healthcare. instead of a irresponsible war based on lies I want those money to go on schools and hospitals. Is this a bad thing?

            “It simply doesn’t stand to reason that the solution to fixing an economy is to take money out of it” by rising taxes. But it stand to your reason the tax deductions on capital gains, for example? If the “trickle down” economy is your motivation than you must know it by now that it didn’t work. So why perpetuating things like this? Is such a bad thing that higher income people have to pay the same taxes as normal people?

            You really can’t explain yourself “high corporate profits combined with high unemployment”?

            “businesses aren’t comfortable hiring people and investing in the future”. Take a look globally, everywhere it’s depression. It could have been as spain 25% unemployment. The fact that it is so low and is kicking back it’s the sign of a job well done.

            I also have other explanation for businesses not being comfortable hiring americans. You are looking to small businesses, how about the big players? Because here is an issue with these big guys: they can produce whatever anywhere. So when you talk about regular folks starting a business you may be right, but when you take a look at the top the picture changes dramatically. Why would guys as romney pay a honest salary when they can hire for $100 a slave in china that will work 12 hours or more per day 20-30 days per month with no benefits sometime in inhuman conditions? When you can come with an explanation good enough for this phenomena you will have the other part of the answer that you are unwilling to see.

            You say that people don’t know if they should buy a new car of fix the old one and this hurts. You know what I care? If big corporation like Apple that are making their fortune on american market ask themselves if to hire a chinese or an american. because they do and i am pretty sure they go with the chinese.

            (…)

            You are keep mentioning the gas price as being high, but again out of context. You should take a look at the prices worldwide to get the right picture.

            I put for you the prices in Germany, that has about 5% unemployment and it is the strongest country in Europe and in the world:
            Regular 7.747 USD / Gallon
            Super 7.747 USD / Gallon
            Super Plus 8.021 USD / Gallon
            Diesel 7.331 USD / Gallon
            Super E10 7.541 USD / Gallon

            Unless you don’t compare it with Venezuela or Iran, prices are very high everywhere because the whole world is in crisis.

            Nobody wants to share the wealth of nobody. It is no redistribution of anything. All states take money through taxes to support their functions, this is only normal. Asking to give up to the tax cuts created by and for the richest it’s not redistribution, restitution, socialism, communism or whatever may spring in your indoctrinated mind. It is plain and simple paying the fair amount of taxes, I’m for an equal and unique tax for everybody that should be high enough to help recovery. I do understand greed and I do understand the richest do not want to pay higher taxes than regular folks, but why should regular folks pay higher taxes? The issue here is that the richest do not want to pay any tax at all if possible and they don’t care if their money are in a US bank or in Cayman Islands. I do care, so do you. The upper-income people have in fact favorable legislation for years that made no favor to this country and prove to bring no benefits to anybody bellow them. Years of such legislation proved unsuccessful should have cured you, but it looks it is or a resistant strain as “trickle down” theory re-emerge periodically with republican folks. Somebody say that it is a sign of stupidity to do the same thing expecting a different result. I agree.

            • “I want those money to go on schools”

              Really, so we can get the figure up from 50% of college grads can’t get job to what? Maybe 75%. That kind of talk gets votes but not jobs.

            • So let’s go point by point:

              “Bush “overly caught up in war” seems very forgettable to you” – my point about overly caught up in the war is that Bush was likely so focused on the war on terror that he didn’t have the bandwidth for the crisis…and he should have. failure on his part (i think we agree here)

              For Obama choosing universal healthcare over fixing the economy, yeah i would say this is worse. Bush was in the danger zone and missed it. Obama saw blood on the floor and did nothing but give money to large corporations at a faster rate than bush…and to little effect….unemployment has been high for a record amount of time…going back to the 1940’s.

              ” If the “trickle down” economy is your motivation than you must know it by now that it didn’t work. So why perpetuating things like this? Is such a bad thing that higher income people have to pay the same taxes as normal people?”

              Of course the so-called trickle down economy worked. Just look at the numbers. Low unemployment, increase of personal wealth, increase of standard of living…etc all until this president. Sure we’ve had a few hiccups along the way, but this is the longest time we’ve had of bad on record. If we take Obama at his word, he said its failed policies of the past that caused his current problems, if so point to them and show us the numbers…he can’t.

              “Take a look globally, everywhere it’s depression. It could have been as spain 25% unemployment. The fact that it is so low and is kicking back it’s the sign of a job well done.” Dude, this is America, we’re always better than everyone else, its called American Exceptionalism. There’s no comparing us to the rest of the world, we do things better…period. Obama has overseen the worse string of unemployment numbers of any president in modern history, that’s a fact he can’t run away from.

              “You should take a look at the prices worldwide to get the right picture.” Again, you’re forgetting this is America, we are different than the rest of the world. Obama could easily effect the gas prices by opening the flood gates on drilling in the USA. Bush lifted offshore drilling and the prices went down to less than $2.00 a gallon. Obama could double down on this and probably get it even lower.

              For taxes…

              Again, this is America. We believe all men are created equal. No one should be ascribed personal property rights based on the amount of property they have. Income is a form of personal property, if you don’t believe that please send me your next paycheck…at ain’t your’s anyway, right?

              The deal with Obama is that he only wants to raise taxes on people who have higher incomes. This violates the spirit of taxation without representation….as does the progressive tax code we have today. Also, corporate income tax is a misnomer. Corporations don’t really pay taxes, taxes are really just a part of their cost of doing business. If they want to make 10% profit ever year, that would be ‘after’ taxes, not before so they pass the taxes on to their customers, or compensate their employees less, or lower their quality, whatever they have to do to make that 10%. Taxes just make it harder, but they will still get that 10%.

              “Why would guys as romney pay a honest salary when they can hire for $100 a slave in china that will work 12 hours or more per day 20-30 days per month with no benefits sometime in inhuman conditions? ”

              Question for you…have you ever ordered something online, rather than buying local, because its cheaper? That’s effectively all they are doing if/when you do that. But to your point, why don’t you think globally here, put it in global perspective? Do you think that the working conditions for those people are worse with an American company than with companies owned by citizen in their homeland? the answer to this situation is a balancing act. On the one hand, if you make American companies meet American pay and condition standards all around the world, it is likely that your so called slave would not get that $100 at all. But then, it is also at the same time a tragedy that anyone lives like that. the answer is not to take money from the rich, or to punish big companies.

              The answer to the situation is tough for many to take, and hopefully not too offensive for this site or those reading…. It is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to that country, and push for a representative republic form of government. the result will be a righteous behaving people with a government that cares more for the citizens than the obtaining of personal power. China is increasingly having a difficult time justifying the suppression of a religion which results in people loving their neighbors as themselves…you don’t need as many police for those people. The whenever, and wherever, America has pulled from these values, things have gone wrong. It is the largest root of poverty all around the world, and also the largest root of success in the USA. Hopefully that’s not too offensive.

            • “You should take a look at the prices worldwide to get the right picture.”

              Try 8.5 cents a gallon, yes US$ 0.085 per gallon or 40 times cheaper than the $3.50 gallon which prevails today in the US. Think about it, 40 times cheaper in Venezuela than in the US.

            • Billy:

              Yeah, and most people don’t realize that America is on track to become the NUMBER ONE producer of oil and gas soon–more than eve Saudi Arabia.

              We would have the best highways and bridges in the world if they had pegged the gas tax to price, rather than gallon. I don’t think people realize the federal gas tax is the SAME 18.4 cents a gallon that it was when regular leaded gas at the Speedway 79 station was 32 cents a gallon (19 cents during price wars).

              It’s the oil companies that are gouging us. The oil companies charge whatever the “traffic” will bear–and we’ll pay anything they charge.

            • Not on the same page here at all. The government makes WAAY more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do! 50 cents vs 2 cents. And little of that 50 cents goes into roads and bridges. Somebody is paying for those “free” cell phones and those empty buses burning up tax free fuel on our city streets.

            • Billy:

              Nope. Fed tax is unchanged at 18.4%

              And, Billy, you can’t really tell me you believed that two cents profit mumbo-jumbo, right?

              Let’s do some simple arithmetic.

              In 2005, Exxon/Mobil sold 50.2 billion gallons–in the entire world. AND they reported profits of $36.1 billion–after corporate salaries, bonuses. expenses, deductions–and doing all their accounting sleight-of-hand.

              Divide 36 by 50 and you get 72 CENTS PROFIT PER GALLON SOLD.

              They get to that fantasy 2-cents figure by subtracting profits they make on the oil, itself, as well as their franchise profits. Since they only own 5% of the stations with the sign out front, they make a lot of profit without the risks of running stations.

              Source: Fortune/Money Magazine

              http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/17/8374303/index.htm

              I’m sure the “two cents” is hoked up. I just don’t believe it. Two cents a gallon would be about 0.5% (ZERO-point-five). Even grocery chains make 3%.

              Considering that the shared monopoly of oil companies can charge anything they want–and we have shown that we’ll keep paying it–I REALLY don’t believe that they limit themselves to half

            • Well let’s put it another way, what is exon going to invest it’s profits into and what is the government going to invest the tax into. The average government tax is 50 cents per gallon. States build roads and bridges too.

            • Billy:

              You answered your own question. The gas tax is for roads and bridges. Exxon profits are to buy politicians. You choose.

            • Well only a small part of that gas tax is being used for roads and bridges. As for exon’s profits, okay a large part is to pay off the politicians but do you really think Exon wants to blend some 75 different grands of gasoline? No the politicians are the root cause of high prices at the pump.

            • It is my understanding that the gas tax is one tax that has not been raided for other uses. To tell you the truth, I don’t care enough to research it, but the last time I heard, that money is in a “lock box.”

              As for gas prices, I just don’t believe it. While regulations might cost a LITTLE, it’s certainly not significant. If oil companies were struggling, then I’d say, yeah, maybe. But the oil companies are among the largest and most profitable companies in the world. They got that way because they have a shared monopoly that controls something that we cannot do without, so they really can charge anything they want, and we will pay it.

              It’s like the auto companies. Yes, it’s true that worker wages were high, they were ONLY high because the executives knew that they could charge whatever they wanted, and it made THEIR bonuses higher, too. So they did not really try to negotiate, because they all benefited (at our expense)–until the Japanese came along.

              The oil companies will continue to gouge us because there is no “Japanese” competitor that’s going to come along this time.

            • Why not. Wall street could invest in a few barge loads of gas from Hugo but try to get it into this country. Gas was $3.85 in Chicago and $3.21 in Tennessee at the same time. One RR tank car holds about 30,000 gal. Want to invest. Sorry you can’t bring it in. Regulations.

            • Billy:

              I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying. By “Hugo,” I’m guessing that you mean Venezuela.

              Regardless, complaining about “regulations” is ridiculous of you don’t address WHY they exist.

              Generally, they exist in order to PROTECT one corporation from another, or in this case, probably to PUNISH other countries, even if it hurts our citizens.

              It is the corporations that BUY the regulations, but if anyone tries to stop it, you call the remedy “regulations” and condemn that, too.

              As they said during Watergate–follow the money, and the real money is going to the corporations, with relatively small gratuities going to their puppets in government. So it really doesn’t help to condemn ONLY the puppet–you have to cut off the hand that’s up the puppet’s butt, working his mouth.

            • And they do it because they can. Not going to stop either because the voters would have it in no other way. Honesty is the road to starvation. You can’t beat a cheater that gets away with it and if you catch him, it might cost you more the way our judicial system works.

            • Goethe – you make the assumption that the only profits the oil company makes is from gasoline. Oil is used for tons of stuff. i have a friend who works in the oil business as sort of a connector between sellers and buyers of oil. There’s all kinds of different uses for oil than just gasoline, and there’s a lot of different types of oil used for different purposes.

              Oil is used for, motor oil, ‘petroleum jelly’, plastics, all kinds of stuff. Don’t know if 2 cents per gallon is accurate, but it definitely isn’t 72 cents per gallon for gas. the profits come from elsewhere. Gasoline is something people easily understand, and power hungry government officials take advantage of people’s ignorance.

              the media is failing in their job of reporting accurately on this stuff.

            • Josh: Corporations shuffle figures in whatever direction they think will make them look good. In this case, they stack the deck to make it look like they make almost NOTHING on gas–because they know people are upset with paying a lot for gas. But they also want to be able to tell stockholders that they’re making money hand-over-fist. So they shift all their “costs” to gasoline and make it seem like they’re giving you gas as an act of charity.

              What really pisses me off is that some yokel will throw out a “sky is falling” story about weather or war or whatever, and THAT DAY, gas prices jump. Assuming the yokel story is true, that should not have an effect on prices for months, if at all. YET, they use any “news” against us, and we think, “oh, I’m being gouged because of the news.”

              Here’s another thing that pisses me off: I live in Michigan and there was a pipeline problem in Chicago, so our prices immediately jumped. In this case, you COULD say that prices jumped to cut demand, so that the drop in supply would not hit hard. But the part that gets me is that we are, in effect, rewarding inefficiency (and maybe fraud). It is the JOB of the oil companies to MAINTAIN their equipment.

              When they fail to do that, THEY should be the ones to suffer–and that would help keep it from happening. Instead, they know if they screw up, they can just increase prices, and get paid MORE for doing LESS. When this sort of things happens, there should be a “windfall profit” law, so that they will have an incentive to keep oil from poisoning us.

              Here, a MILLION gallons flowed into the Kalamazoo River. So not only did they poison our river–on the way to poisoning Lake Michigan–but we had to pay high prices on top of it, to reward them for the screw up. Nobody was watching the dials to see the drop in pressure. Why should they? They make more if they poison us.

            • Great post, I know there is little money made at the oil refinery as they are shutting down a lot more than building new ones.

            • Billy:

              Except that they use “too few refineries” as the EXCUSE for their own increased prices.

              And so, they shuffle the numbers of their obscene profits to rationalize squeezing the supply even more.

            • Hey if there was a profit to be made, wall street would be there. Hugo sells the stuff for 8 cents a gallon. Right, that’s because we pay $3.50.

            • Billy:

              Wall Street *IS* there. And that’s WHY we’re paying almost $4 bucks a gallon, instead of 8 cents.

              But, of course, you have to realize that Hugo is subsidizing the process TO HELP CITIZENS THERE. Our goal is not to help our citizens.

              Also, you do realize that the CITGO gas that’s sold down the street from you is owned BY the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.–you do realize that, right?

            • The 58-year-old Chavez took 54.42 per cent of the vote, with 90 per cent of the ballots counted, to 44.97 per cent for young opposition candidate Capriles, official results showed on Sunday.

            • I’d vote for anyone who could sell me gasoline for 8 cents a gallon. Our guy put our money into Solyndra. He still might win the election though. I mean the investment did make a few people rich but I don’t think anyone is getting rich off of 8 cent gasoline unless they can get it out of the country.

            • That’s true, it is the job of the companies to maintain their equipment, but fund that by means of product sales. They have no other way to fund it, other than taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. They only way money comes into the company (or the only way it *should* come) is by sales…generally speaking.

              Windfall profit laws only make the business harder. There are unintended consequences, like what about the people who are living off of the pension plan of the company? Effecting the stability of the company, also effects the stability of those people’s pensions. Enron is a good example of a company dieing and people lost pensions (sure different cause of company failure, but the point is when a company fails more people are effected than just the CEO and Board of Directors).

              There are ways to effect the business climate without effecting real freedom. One of the largest parts of the high cost of fuel is government over-regulation. Remember the late Bush years, he lifted the offshore drilling ban and the price continually declined from around $4/gallon down to less than $2/gallon in about a year. There are all kinds of different fuel mixture requirements (i heard california has like 23 different mixtures) the companies must meet because of government regulation.

              Yes, there are people who are taking advantage of the system. But there are more villans than those guys, and i think (based on what i saw in the bush years) that the government is the largest villan when gas prices are high.

              They even subsidize ethanol to make gas cheaper. That’s crazy! The gas isn’t really cheaper, there’s just a government subsidy (money taken from our pockets and put in the company’s pocket) so that we will pay less at the pump. What makes it worse is this caused the price of corn to go up (ethanol is a corn product), and all foods with corn in it went up in price. Beef and milk went up in price because of this subsidy because corn is a part of cattle feed. I heard that Al Gore even talked about how the ethanol push had unintended consequences around the world because many 3rd world countries could not afford as much corn before and had less to eat.

              Government is a villain we need to recognize. We do need them to put smart laws in place that both enable free enterprise and also prevent abuse.

            • Josh:

              It is true that companies get money through sales, but when they screw up, I do NOT believe we should reward them for it–I don’t believe that it should ONLY come out of our pockets–because that just encourages them to be lax in the future.

              As noted, they were able to foist higher prices on us when THEY screwed up. In fact, when just ONE company screwed up, they ALL jacked up prices, because they knew we heard their “good news” of failed equipment.

              Therefore, when one company failed in its responsibility to perform due diligence, they made MORE money, they got higher bonuses, stockholders got larger dividends, and stockholders got more share appreciation because they screwed up. And who paid? We did–because we were sold the logic that THEIR failure is OUR problem.

            • So where do you suggest they get the money when they screw up. They don’t have the printing press but the they could always stick it to the bond holders like GM did.

            • Billy:

              My point is that they don’t DO due diligence, because they realize they make MORE profit if they screw up.

              So first, they should spend what they need to spend to PREVENT foul ups. If they are shown to be negligent, the company should pay out of its hide (which is always a few days profit, or so). If it is proven that they were not negligent, I still see it as a cost of doing business, but at the very worst, the owners and managers should SHARE the loss.

              The screw ups should NOT fall COMPLETELY on our shoulders–as they do now–while profits actually go UP–BECAUSE of the failure–with extra bonuses to managers and extra dividends to shareholders, as well. That is just not right.

            • But whenever government steps in and tries to level the playing field we get a screw up supreme. Gos look what the did with AT&T. Held it together so it could provide better service at a lower cost. Stagnation and inefficiency for years and years. Just think what transportation would be like if the government took it’s heavy foot off just a little on automobile manufacturing. We had at one time over 80 car manufacturers. Government regs cut it down to 3 and two out of the 3 failed.

            • Billy:

              You’re making MY argument. You’re saying it was good to break up the ATT monopoly. So you’re agreeing with me that monopolies and shared monopolies are a bad thing.

            • As John Stossel pointed out you can’t even open a lemonade stand free in this country, without permits, and more permits. Then there are all those taxes on anything that really goes over like cell phones, motels and rental cars. Just takes too much money out of circulation for business to survive.

            • Billy:

              John Stossel–pffft.

              Besides, you’re ducking the point that government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporations, so complaining about their henchmen is senseless.

        • Sounds good but why do I have to pay for my cell phone every month while the guy on the other side of the tracks gets his for nothing. (It ain’t for nothing as Gary said, I got to pay for his too because he is on crack and can’t hold down a job.)

        • Yep thats why they throwing away votes in Virginia.. This looks like a repeat of the honest Republicans at work…(I almost choked as those two words never belong together)America understands that Obama is not a miracle worker but he is trying so people who want the rich to stay richer due to lower taxes for them while us middle class no counts pay the bill started rigging the votes as they did with Bush which is sad because if Romney is all that they he would win fairly.
          While I will agree with you that the people need more strict guidelines for welfare. I think it is really obnoxious that I work and joe schmoe sits on his tush and smokes up the darn link card. That should be for people who truly need it.

          • Well you could have been a bit more creative with something like, before you let him go, ask yourself what have you got to replace him with? However: I got your point and welfare money does stay in the country as opposed to the Romney way.

  56. Ok.. I slightly agree, but then disagree I say 4more years Obama deserves it. He’s smart. Romney wont provide the services we need.
    Also this year nickelodeon is letting kids vote and 87% is for Obama.. Personally I feel as though Romney is horrible.
    Obama hasnt finished what he started. I say 4 MORE YEARS!!!

    • 5.4 trillion dollar increase in debt? He should have finished before he started in running up the debt.

    • I personally don’t want Obama finish what he’s started. What has he started? It isn’t good. He at all costs should NOT be allowed to finish.

      • I’ll drink to that. But if he gives me a free cell phone with 240 min a month I might change my mind.

  57. HOW CAN WE TRUST A MAN WHO CHANGES HIS VIEWS CONSTANTLY?

    Before Mitt Romney started claiming he’d stand up to China and its unfair trade practices, he was profiting off of them… Mitt. Romney even maintained his investment in a Chinese manufacturing company that relied on outsourcing American jobs after seeing its poor work conditions, which he described as surrounded by barbed wire and packed with 12 women per dormitory room. When our competitors started a global race to the bottom, rather than placing a premium on creating American jobs and lifting the middle class, Mitt Romney dove in head first.

    Tough on China? Really? Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India. Romney even outsourced State jobs to India as Governor!

    During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    • Carl: Like a stopped clock, Romney is right twice a day. The difference is that the hands of the clock do not move.

      I think it’s funny that Romney is trying to steal Obama’s theme of “change.” If there’s one thing Willard should want to do is give people the illusion that he does NOT change all the time.

      (Triple-Flippin-Mitten.)

        • Brian:

          Beck has one skill: choosing half-truths and building a house of cards by twisting the truth. It sounds impressive–if you don’t KNOW the FULL truth.

          There’s a reason even FOX had to fire him.

            • Gee I don’t even remember what his show was about but I do remember the “don’t take my word for it, look it up” and for what he gets paid either no one looks it up or there is indeed truth to what ever in the hell he is talking about.

            • Billy:

              Let me break it down for you. If you only look at certain “facts,” you can make any argument you want. Beck starts with a conclusion, and then looks for “facts.” If you only look at HIS “facts,” he seems to know what he’s talking about.

              It’s like the six blind men who wanted to know what an elephant was, so they went IN PERSON, and investigated.

              The first felt its side and said, “God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!”

              The second felt its tusk and said, “To me ’tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!”

              The third touched its trunk and said, “the Elephant
              Is very like a snake!”

              The fourth felt it’s leg and said, “‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”

              The fifth touched its ear and said, “This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!”

              The sixth felt its tail and said, “the Elephant
              Is very like a rope!”

              All of them were right, of course, and so is Glenn Beck, in the micro-minute section of the truth he wants to sell you.

            • Billy:

              We all did, and it amazes me that people get half-truths, such as the story says, and they continue to say, “but they have PROOF!!!!”

            • Brian:

              What Beck does is forms a script of what he wants to say, then he goes through history and cherry-picks events and twists them and jumps up and down on them until they fit. That hurts, but doesn’t make it the truth.

            • But it does make him rich, very rich. Just show me where it cost the taxpayers anything and I might look into just what he does. If he is or was on TV they must have sponsors. Were they the US Army or the postal service? Guess I could look it up. I did and that’s why Fox let him go, good ratings but poor advertizing appeal. Seems like the guy is radioactive but very rich in being so. How can that be? This guy must be really super smart. Guess I really missed out by not watching the guy and how he did it.

            • Billy:

              Dude. I can’t believe you’re saying if someone is rich they can’t be heinous. You got that backward.

              The bible doesn’t say “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, but what the hell, who am I to question a rich man?”

          • Under the $100 million contract, Beck’s net worth is expected to soon double. Forbes magazine estimates his current worth to be around $80 million, and when Beck last negotiated with Premiere in 2007 it was for only $10 million per year; under the latest arrangement, the host will be paid double that.

            I don’t know what he does but whatever it is he is very good at it.

          • Billy:

            From what I can tell, Beck’s entire argument is that it was a “lie” for Obama to say sequestering was not his idea. I don’t know if it’s possible to figure out what was whose idea, but Obama did work to get a budget. He thought he had one, but then Boehner went back to the vipers’ pit and they told him the goal is to have NO budget. So Boehner went back and made up some excuse.

            NOBODY thinks sequestration is going to go through. It was just what they call an “atomic alternative” that nobody wants.

            BUT–if it did happen, is it really that bad? It’s an across-the-board cut. No favorites. No sweet deals for lobbyists.

            They seem to be mostly crying about so-called “cuts” in the military, which are only really reductions in insane increase. The military budget under Bush averaged $450 billion/year. Under Obama, it has averaged $900 billion/year.

            • Like does anyone really care who’s idea it was? If Beck can get rich off stuff like that think what he could do with something that mattered? You got me interested in the guy now.

  58. I thought that most of the actions and policies as President don’t have direct results until the next President comes into office. And that the direct results that happen during any Presidents term is due to the previous President, and that the actions made by the President are issues that the next President will have to deal with. Can someone debunk this, or confirm this, and break it down to a science without bias? Thanks!

    • Welcome, Someone.

      It depends on what it is. Some things take immediate effect, and you can see the results right away. Other things, such as Obamacare, is being phased in over several years. Then there are things that ARE enacted right away, but the results don’t show up until long after. So, yes, sometimes one president will do something, but the next president gets the credit. You’re right.

  59. Hello Everybody,

    I am an Indian, personally we did not gain much from Obama’s government. All trades and jobs are streamlined in such a way America benefits the most, in turn we suffered certainly.

    Being said that, I vouch Obama not based on any of my individual interest. Reason for even posting here is, I strongly feel his approach/policies/views/strategy is the best for your country. Do not fall prey to the luring words of opposition, because you will have to look if those promises are viable.
    Next, given the challenges during last 4 years, Obama’s govt steered your country to a good stead, certainly in my belief better than his prior government way better amid of all merciless challenges thrown at him during last 4 years. I am sure most of you share my view on this.

    Besides that, world perception on America has improved for the good reason. This must be a proud achievement for any good citizen.

    Do not vote just because of merits or demerits of a single candidate, rather you must look at the political belief systems and approaches of the two parties in America. According to me, I sense that party that Obama belongs would best suit America. I would have voted (but I can not since I am not citizen of USA) even there is another candidate in place of Obama representing their party. This is the right approach for the prosperity of any country.

    Before you vote, just think intelligently, think over all the pros and cons either of the party approaches, then make a decision.

    It does not matter if Romney is best or great, but the party and their views he belongs to will lead to larger detriments of a great country America. I am sure you people certainly care for your country like I do for mine. Personally I like Romney as a person, but I certainly I would not vote if i take a holistic view. Forgive me, I do not have any intent to offend or interfere in your country’s political system without having a solid understanding. What I written here is my humble view.

    • Welcome, Jai:

      You point out something that most Americans don’t know. They think that foreign countries are getting all our money, but as you say, it is really the corporate leaders who are sucking up all the value, and working people on both sides of the ocean get the crumbs.

      • I think the facts would tend to indicate that Americans tend to waste vast amounts of natural resources. In doing so they kind of eliminate themselves from world competition.

    • I think it’s funny how all foreigners across the world can see through the candidates and know the choice better than the rest of us. Thank you for your opinion, Jai, and it’s much appreciated. During this debate, it seemed like Romney only repeated what the president has said, or repeated what he has said before. It seems like Romney is a person who does a lot of rehearsing and reciting, instead of speaking from his heart. He doesn’t have much to offer in terms of future foreign collaborations, and instead keeps going back to talking about jobs. It’s true that to compete abroad, we need a strong economy. But that’s not all. And I feel that Obama genuinely cares about ALL Americans, rich or poor, Christian or Jew, black or white. And I feel that he would be a better leader and yes, as Jai said, the party that Obama belongs to ultimately determines the course of America, and I believe as well as the rest of the world does, that right now, the Democratic party will progress America to a better and brighter future.

      • The Democratic Party acts like a dictator. Ram things down the throats of the American people (He certainly did that with Obamacare) and bypassed the democratic process altogether. Obama promises alot of things “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

        David Axelrod (Obama’s chief political advisor) pet name for Obama is “Black Jesus”. They are all deranged and out-of-touch with reality. Also your “messiah” has invited more radical muslims to the whitehouse (probably gave them the nickel tour) than any other President. Even the moderate Muslims have taken notice…..

        • Daisy:

          I am NOT a Democrat, but you must have a very short memory.

          Bush crammed all kinds of things down our throats. The difference is that he used our own fear and anxiety about 9/11 to stuff us with things that had nothing at ALL to do with 9/11. I think that’s more grievous, since it is so cynical.

          And that “Muslim” idiocy is as bad as the “Communist” idiocy, and sounds just as insane as calling Bush a “Fascist” or “Nazi.” And it only hurts your argument, just as the Democrats destroyed themselves with such nonsense.

          BOTH major parties want power and control, and they are full of whack-jobs. Don’t help them out.

          • http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/report-islamist-radicals-find-warm-welcome-in-obama-white-house/

            Just stating the facts Goethe. Actions speak LOUDER than words.

            For a man who wants to perserve Liberty & Freedom, you sure seem blind (sighted) when it comes to Muslims and Obama’s agenda~ to attain to the most powerful position in the world: Secretary-General of the United Nations! Just like anyone who belongs to a club/profession/group (i.e Military; medical people; politicians), we all have nomenclature that lets the others know that we are one of theirs….

            Wish in one hand and sh*t in the other Goethe and sees which one weighs the most? Libertarians have as much chance of winning the Presidency as sh*t turning into gold. George Wallace is the only candidate who ever won electoral votes. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote/no electoral votes. Unless you can convince Califorina (the white vote has INCREASED in 16 years!) & Texas that your guy is the best and could win the electoral votes.

            Independents will only win if they are organized or have someone like Rick Perry (who can relate to both parties and is Texan) who EVEN has a snowball’s chance…..and by the way, intensely DISLIKES Romney. If “Mittens” doesn’t produce, than Rick could be poised and ready to rally the teaparty & the libertarians.

            • Daisy:

              The Daily Caller? That’s your “source”? The Guardian says it’s the answer to the Huffington Post. Are you willing to give as much credibility to something someone finds in the Huffington Post?? I have never quoted them, and don’t think you’d be well advised to quote the Daily Caller.

              Even then, look at what they claim. By going through the “visitor records,” they found names of individual people who “visited” the White House. What does that even mean?

              And my guess is that the Daily Caller has YOUR name listed as a dangerous terrorist, too!

              And, yes, Rick Perry has good reason to “intensely dislike” Willard–as do others who would like to know what they’re gonna get if they elect someone. The reason it was difficult to debate the guy is that he has no character, no unchanging ideals, so if he gets caught in a pinch, he just changes his argument.

            • Yeah but I sure go for that 85 mph speed limit. Gets things moving. A lot safer than was the 55 mph limit for sure.

            • No doubt Perry would have been a far better choice but so would have been almost anyone on the stage with Mitt. But being 47 out of 50 in job growth and getting the nomination speaks volumes.

            • Billy:

              Did Daisy really say that the Secretary General of the United Nations is the most powerful office in the world? Did I read that right?

              And could anyone be less informed??

              Being Secretary General is probably the worst job in the world. It carries really no power at all, and consists of kissing every butt of every leader in the world. Can she really be that ignorant? (and yes, I do mean to insult at this point, because she is beyond comprehension).

            • Sorry Mr Behr but it is people like you that represent only a sliver of the typical American voter. It is Daisy that is in step with the majority.

            • Billy:

              Are you kidding? Do people really think the Sec. Gen. of the U.N. has power? All he can do is talk, for crying out loud.

              The General Assembly can pass whatever it wants, but just ONE member of the Security Council can veto it.

              The Sec. Gen. is just a figurehead who takes abuse. I don’t know why anyone would want the job.

              But if ANY American would want the job, it would probably Be bill Clinton. He’s the only U.S. President who ever got a standing ovation in the General Assembly. Even though the office has no real power, it would look good on a resume.

            • Oh I can think of about 230,000 reasons why somebody would want the job. Not to mention all the free travel and food.

            • Billy:

              Yeah. Not me. I don’t even know why someone would want to be president, much less Gen. Sec.

              In 2008, the satirical publication, the Onion printed a story with the headline “Black Man Gets Worst Job in America!”

            • And spend a billion dollars to get the job. Arguably the most powerful man in the world. Now Margaret Elizabeth Gates (Bess Truman’s mother) would agree with you as she always thought Bess could have done better.

        • The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.

          Shall I go on………..

          • Yes, and it has kept us safe Billy! Look at how many terroist attacks were thwarted because of this! If it were so bad as you allege, we wouldn’t be on this forum discussing things, would we? We would be rounded up and charged with treason and being “enemies of the nation”.

            Before you go yammering on about Bush, read about what Saddam, himself said about George H & George W. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-3749494.html

            The end of the matter (pg 6) is the most revealing! Because of the language barrier, Saddam didn’t know much about the US (just through the movies he watched), nor did we much about him. He used bravado about the mass weapons of destruction to defend his honor and to impose FEAR into Iraq, who btw, STILL remains a force to be reckoned with!

            • Yeah and when we went in there we found all those imaginary WMD. It only cost a trillion dollars to do it and a few American lives. But now we have the benefit of far lower oil cost as Iraq is paying us back with oil they provide us with.

              Dream on Daisy, Dream on

            • @daisy, i am sorry but you are saying very dubious things. first of all sadam was put in place by us if you forgot it. he was an insane dictator? no doubt. but was the war on iraq justified? here the answer is “no”. at least it can’t be justified by the reasons brought by bush to american people.

              as with arab countries you can see what happens there right now. i think the open minded showed by president along with some hidden help we gave along the line is now producing the changes we’ve seen. i wouldn’t blame obama for this and i wouldn’t make it about the race.

      • A black politician from Chicago cares, yeah sure, give me a break. Doesn’t matter if he cares or not, it’s what he intends to do and what’s in it for me. I judge them by what they have done, not what they say they will do.

  60. If yall are just going to turn this into a political forum then just find one instead of this one

    • I don’t:

      Dude. The TITLE of the blog is

      “2012presidentialelectionnews.”

      You were expecting, maybe, that we’d be discussing recipes?

    • Jorg (I don’t know how to make an umlaut):

      You must have watched the debates. The fall Romney is the exact opposite of who was in the GOP debates last spring. Evil Twin, I guess.

      Anyway, your comment reminds me of the Etch-a-Sketch Willard who ran for Senate–defending “a woman’s right to chose,” saying he was much more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, and more).

      At the end of the 1994 election, Teddy said, “Now he’s for family leave, now it looks like he’s for a minimum wage, now he’s for education reform, and if we give him two more weeks he may even vote for me.”

  61. oops, meant to say that the white vote hasn’t increased in California in 16 years, but the hispanic & asian vote has, which is why they remain a blue state.

    • Daisy:

      California was NOT a blue state prior to 1992, so it’s not like non-whites are out to get you.

      In fact, here’s the main reason for the change at about 1990:

      “The Cold War ended. In the early 1990s, defense spending began to fall, and numerous military bases in California were closed . This helped spark an out-migration of mostly white, affluent and Republican-leaning residents, including many former defense-industry workers.” [The Military-Industrial Complex skipped town.]

      I know you folks miss the Cold War, and have tried to make the “Muslim Menace” into a new Cold War, but the fact is that we do NOT need the ships Romney is pitching, because he’s trying to fight the Cold War (Russia as our number one foe)–and that’s precisely NOT how to fight the challenges that face us in, you know, this MILLENNIUM.

      • Putin Thanks Romney for Calling Russia No. 1 Foe

        MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney’s characterization of Moscow as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe” has actually helped Russia.

        The Russian leader said Romney’s comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO’s plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.

        “the system will definitely be directed at Russia,” he said, according to a transcript posted on Putin’s official website.

  62. NY, OH, Michigan, and the Bible states might jump on, especially if the religious right gets behind them. What with the internet; fast commuication; video taping on phones & tracking, Politicians can’t play liar’s poker and dodge responsibility like they could in yesteryear. Mitt promises “transparency” so give him a chance to be transparent and to turn around our sinking ship. Until the ship is righted, we all sink down into the abyss….

    • I think the country deserves better than just a chance. However; that’s about all it has going for it if either of these two birds get in.

    • Would ask all that find merit in the below to SPREAD IT! Thanks.
      ————————————————————————————–

      VOTE for Gary Johnson (do not write-in Ron Paul, please)!

      Here is why:

      The Establishment fears Ron Paul so much that they will do anything to stop him and his (our) movement for Liberty on the election level (since so far they have not been able to control the internet, and thus shut us down completely)!

      The Major Networks will show after the election NOTHING for Ron Paul (not even that he got ANY of the Vote, for that would be admitting that some actually dared to write-in his name).

      The Apparatchiks have been instructed to shred all write-in ballots where Ron Paul’s name appears (for proof just watch after the election and see if Ron Paul is even mentioned, let alone how many votes he got)!

      Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 States — so a vote for him is a vote COUNTED against the wannabe despots of America! (Plus, if he breaks the 5+% level, the Libertarian Party (Ron Paul’s original party) will be eligible for federal funds to the tune of about 90 million dollars for the next election — and no longer will be a financial shoe-string operation!!!).

      VOTE GARY JOHNSON (or write-in Ron Paul if you must) — as long as you vote for what you realize is BEST for our Nation, and NOT get bamboozled into voting again for the “lesser of two evils”: the Kenyan Barack or Mitt the Mormon (this path only leads to more and bigger evil, for the next election cycle…should there be one)!!!

    • Daisy:

      You are REALLY frothing at the mouth now. NEW YORK????? Michigan??? Even Ohio??? And how on earth did your brain connect them to the bible belt?

      And the religious right “getting behind them”?? Girl, they ARE the religious right.

      Seriously, girl, what ARE you smoking?

      • I am talking about next election Goethe! If Romney doesn’t deliver, then it would be a good time to rouse the highest/key electoral states and get an Independent elected. People want results and if Romney is half as bad as you claim he will be, then the American people will be ready to consider a brand-new type of candidate. One who represents the people’s will and not the wealthy or career politician’s rhetoric.

        • Daisy:

          I apologize. I misunderstood.

          If Romney loses, it will show once again that mealy-mouth candidates like Ford, Dole, and Romney are not the way to go.

          I’d like to see the Libertarians and Tea Party approach the Green Party and other disparate, groups and form a “big tent” party that promotes what the goals of each–and finding areas of true agreement. Wednesday’s debate was amazing for how often the candidates agreed. There were only a couple of issues on which they didn’t.

          Anyway, that should be the new SECOND party, and do away with the anti-grass roots structure that produces candidates who are Romniscient about how to manipulate to get what they want, and have Romnesia when it comes to ideals.

          • Things got to get a lot worse before that is going to happen. However: things are surly not going to get better when either of these two turkeys are elected. Just can’t figure out which will do more harm. I tend to believe Romney would.

          • Billy, Mitt was governing with a democrat controlled house. The fact that he even got elected in “Taxachusetts” is a feat in and of itself. Fortune magazine reported in its 2012 September issue that the US Congress has never been as polarized in the history of our country, as it is now. Instead of having heated discussions and finding common ground, it is now considered “treasonous” to even speak to other party members, let alone work with them.

            I am voting for Romney (and I consider myself an Independent) because we need to turn the economy around; politicians need to be encouraged to work together for the common good (instead of wanting one party to dominate) and the religious right (Billy Graham placed a full page ad in my battle state of OHIO yesterday)endorsing him. He didn’t name him, but readers only had to look at the characteristics of the candidate that he was endorsing to realize who he is…..

            Obama doesn’t care who he throws under the bus, just ask the families of the men who died needlessly at the Benghazi compound.

            • Daisy: It’s no trick to win an election when you swamp the state with money–like the 17-to-1 he spent in some of the primaries.

              But you’re mixing your talking points. You try to sell the “come together” message, and then you say that it’s a good thing for the wacko religious right to say that Willard is in their pocket.

              And, of course, you know NOTHING about Benghazi. Please explain to me what you THINK happened in Benghazi, and then I’ll correct you.

              Your serve.

            • My “Come-together” message is basically this: ALLOW the one person which many people believe can FIX/improve the economy and allow him the chance to get congress working together again. If he fails, then the American people (tea-partyers; religious folks; libertarians; and independents ~ BIG TENT PARTY) will DEMAND a new type of candidate. The time will be right because both parties were given ample time and opportunity to right the ship! Just because I identify with more than one group, doesn’t mean that my idea is off!!!!

            • And when somebody does not do the job, we
              got to let them go. CE We got two turkeys that have proven they can’t do the job.

            • Daisy:

              There will never be good feelings between the two parties as long as Republicans insist on using “Democrat” as a noun. It is an odd quirk in the English language that we use the noun form in place of the adjectival form to show derision. And as long as Republicans, such as Willard, insists on saying things like “Democrat Party,” it’s not just that it sounds ignorant, it is also insulting.

              Don’t understand? Let’s say you’re talking about Joe Lieberman. You know, that “Jewish senator.”

              It sounds completely different if you say, “yeah, that Jew Senator–Lieberman.”

              Or, for that matter, Willard is his name, not Mitt, yet it sounds derisive–because I do mean disrespect, and I DON’T want to get along with him. But he claims he does want it, yet his language shows that it’s just another Romlie.

  63. May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.

    • June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.

    • July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.

    Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.

    • On September 9, 2012, a 2 minute excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station.

    In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”

    • Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

    Sept. 11: The Attack (There were no protesters on site)

    2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)

    3 p.m. (9:00 p.m. Benghazi time): Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening.

    Approximately 3:40 p.m (9:40 p.m. Benghazi time). A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

    CIA operators were apparently told to “stand down” rather than respond when shots were heard around 9:40 p.m..

    Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, the two former Navy SEALS who were among the four Americans inevitably murdered, allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack. Despite being told by higher-ups not to respond, they purportedly decided to go to the main consulate building (ONE MILE in distance) to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

    At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive.

    Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place. Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

    •About 10:00 p.m (4:00 a.m. 9/12/12 Benghazi time).: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video. The cover-up begins because Obama’s campaign can’t bear to hear any criticism that he/his advisors acted too late (especially given the fact that saw the events un-raveling in REAL TIME and that they ignored multiple requests for more security, days and weeks before the attack!

    • Daisy:

      That timeline is just plain WRONG. Where’d you get it, fox?

      I have to work for a living, so I will have to come back to this shortly. Just couldn’t let it sit here as if it were authoritative, though.

      It is not.

            • I doubt if the Benghazi attack qualifies for the Darwin award, unlike the 2012 winner below:

              Darwin Awards 2012 – this year’s winner
              THE WINNER

              The Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smouldering metal embedded in the side of a cliff rising above the road at the apex of a curve. The wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a car. The type of car was unidentifiable at the scene. Police investigators finally pieced together the mystery. An amateur rocket scientist had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted Take Off, actually a solid-fuel rocket) that is used to give heavy military transport planes an extra ‘push’ for taking off from short airfields. He had driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight stretch of road. He attached the JATO unit to the car, jumped in, got up some speed and fired off the JATO!

              The facts as best could be determined are that the operator of the 1967 Impala hit the JATO ignition at a distance of approximately 3.0 miles from the crash site. This was established by the scorched and melted asphalt at that location.

              The JATO, if operating properly, would have reached maximum thrust within 5 seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds well in excess of 350 mph and continuing at full power for an additional 20 -25 seconds. The driver, and soon-to-be pilot, would have experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog fighting F-14 jocks under full afterburners, causing him to become irrelevant for the remainder of the event.

              However, the automobile remained on the straight highway for about 2.5 miles (15-20 seconds) before the driver applied and completely melted the brakes, blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface, then becoming airborne for an additional 1.4 miles and impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet, leaving a blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock. Most of the driver’s remains were not recoverable. It has been calculated that this moron attained a ground speed of approximately 420-mph, though much of his voyage was not actually on the ground.

        • Billy:

          I agree. The Benghazi attack came at a bad time. If it had been a few weeks earlier and the attackers were dragged into jail, things would have looked better for Barry.

          Ironically, the weather may save him, since he can be Commander-in-Chief and Father Figure this weekend–and after. The storm is slow-moving and could be wreaking havoc of one form or another until election day.

          Clearly, God doesn’t like the Mormon. Sent a hurricane to disrupt his convention, and is now sending another one to disrupt his theatrical finish.

          • Goethe,

            Wow you are S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G there Wolverine. New York, New Jersey, Delaware, & Maryland are BLUE States, so If God is unleashing his fury, who is on the receiving end of his wrath?

            Regarding your statement about “The attackers clearly did not know what they were doing. It was not a planned attack, because it might have been totally ineffectual.” hmmm People just happen to carry mortars & rocket launchers with them? Whether the Americans died of smoke inhalation or smoke, they are still DEAD from the hands of their assailants.

            Bark Obama and elect Mutt Romney! Here is some syntax for you, you Democrat lover!

            • Daisy:

              I’ll leave aside your glee about people dying in America. My facetious comment just pointed out the irony of the timing of two weather events–I wasn’t blaming the victims.

              But you REALLY don’t know what’s going on if you don’t realize that a revolution just occurred in Libya, that the place is awash with weapons, and that the regimentation of the dictator has not yet been replaced by stable civil order.

              And I stand by my assertion that this was not a planned plot:
              (1) there is NO way that the attackers could have known that Stevens was going to be there, since he arrived just the day earlier–so how could they “plan”?
              (2) the country is awash with weapons from the revolution, so any irritant could cause an uprising,
              (3) there was a convergence of several irritants,
              (4) it appears that members of the city security militia were involved, but the leaders of the group DENY any responsibility,
              (5) the attackers did not understand the facility, or HOW to attack it, were totally unable to defeat the locks,
              (6) you claim that they had mortars and rocket launchers, but if they did, they could have defeated the locks–they obviously hadn’t planned ahead, and
              (7) if the personnel had followed orders and safety procedures, they would have survived.

              This was a sad episode, and an outrage, but it was NOT a carefully planned plot, and there is absolutely NO evidence of al Qaeda involvement.

              And, as Condoleeza Rice later said, with information flying in from all directions, it takes days to sort out what really happened in any such episode. Yet, Willard tried to make political points before we had any real idea what happened. Stevens’ father says he is satisfied with what he has heard, and the ongoing investigation.

            • And there was no way the Russians could have gotten the atomic bomb secret either but people do some strange things for money.

            • One other thing Goethe….how dare you to assume that I or anyone has any “glee” about the latest natural disaster Sandy! It was You who made the statement that God doesn’t like Mormons and targeted his wrath to disrupt Mitt’s convention and now his “theatrical finish”.

              All I did was to point out which states are on the receiving end of his wrath, if that is his intent (as you alleged). Let’s see how long it takes for the POTUS to respond this time. Louisanna hasn’t forgotten his slow inept response about cleaning up the gulf. Foreign countries and companies experienced with clean-up operations offered their help numerous times, but were not allowed to help!

            • Billy:

              No. I made the joke that God must not like the Mormon, because He sent a hurricane to mess up Willard’s convention and another to mess up the end of his campaign.

              The reason I made the joke is that Willard’s friends are the ones who said Katrina was sent to punish New Orleans to punish sinners. Even though, if that were the case, God had bad aim, since the “sinful” part of town was spared.

              It’s ironic that the hurricane had the same name as our rabid poster.

            • So maybe it was all planned? I just don’t think so. Got to be careful what you wish for even after it happens.

            • People just happen to carry mortars & rocket launchers with them?

              Got to go with Daisy on that one. My question is, by who? Why wasn’t the 911 call answered? Kind of like why did Uncle Doug have the “do not disturb” sign out for some 6-7 hrs after Pearl was attacked?

            • Billy:

              That’s all morbid and sick propaganda. First, I’ve seen nothing that says that THESE people carried “mortars and rocket launchers.” That was a different event, at a different place FOUR MONTHS earlier.

              But, in case you didn’t realize, they just finished a revolution. If they didn’t get weapons from the fallen government, they might have been armed BY us. But I still have heard no such thing. If they had “mortars and rocket launchers,” they would have been able to defeat the locks and get into both buildings–they could not get in.

              And, it’s a total lie that there was a delay in getting reinforcements, they arrived quickly, loaded them up, and took off. THAT is the reason only four people died.

            • Just shot up a building and 4 people died. No different than in Chicago on a Saturday night. Well I thought those people over there had a lot more control over thing like that happening than we do here in the States. I have been wrong before.

            • Daisy: You are so full of malarkey. How do you even stand up?

              Apparently, you were banking on the hope I wouldn’t go to the site you gave the link for, but I did. And all there is there is photos of fire. You can start a fire with a Diamond® match. In fact, in Boy Scouts, I learned how to start a fire wit two sticks. There is no evidence of heavy weapons, although it is my understanding that they came back later–after our guys were gone. It is possible they brought heavier weapons then.

              I never said anything about smoke bombs and Molotov cocktails, although you DO know that a Molotov cocktail is just a bottle of gasoline with a rag stuck in the neck, right? Anyway, I didn’t say anything of the sort. You are hallucinating again, girl.

            • Daisy: You are so full of malarkey. How do you even stand up?

              Not an insult? ? ?

              Still think Daisy has it right, I do. I’d surly believe her before Obama.

            • Billy:

              It was DAISY who was complaining about insults to posters, when he did not insult anyone here.

              As for me, I don’t mind calling malarkey “malarkey,” in this case, she sent us to pictures of fires, and then made ridiculous claims of what we were seeing. All we were seeing was fires. And I was the one who originally told HER about the fire.

              Malarkey is malarkey and I claim the right to point it out.

            • But Daisy seems to be right. Someone gave the order to stand down. Doesn’t matter how the Americans got into the jam it’s the Commander in Chief’s job to get them out.

              And when somebody does not do the job, we
              got to let them go.

            • Billy:

              They DID get out. The ONLY people who died either disobeyed direct orders, or died at the hands of the contractor who built the unsafe “safe room.”

              You can’t disassemble and rebuild an entire compound the right way when it’s under immediate attack.

    • Daisy:

      OK, where to begin. . .

      (1) There are several reasons why this does not appear to be an organized attack.
      –Your timeline doesn’t show, but Stevens was NOT at the compound until the 10th, and there’s no way for the attackers to have planned for him to be there.
      –A series of events, such as the inflammatory “Mohammed” video stir up locals one and two days before the attack
      –The attackers clearly did not know what they were doing. It was not a planned attack, because it might have been totally ineffectual.
      –I think it’s clear that the attack was an unfortunate convergence of many things that happened at once, including, but not limited to (a) the Sept. 9 Mohammed video, (b) the Sept. 10 call to avenge the drone killing, and (c) the anniversary of 9/11.

      (2) Your timeline shows that Doherty and Woods were told NOT to return fire.
      –If they had gone into the buildings, they would have been safe.
      –They died because they stood on TOP of the roof, firing at a large number of armed attackers. That was courageous, but it was unnecessary and unhelpful.

      (3) Your timeline doesn’t show it, but NO ONE should have died in this attack.
      –Stevens and Smith went into the “safe room” inside the main building.
      –The attackers were NOT able to get into the “safe room.”
      –The rest of the people went to a second building. The attackers were not even able to get inside of THAT building.
      –At this point, our people should have been safe.
      –If Doherty and Woods had obeyed order and gone inside, they would not have died.

      (4) Your timeline doesn’t show it, but Stevens was NOT shot–he died of smoke inhalation
      –These deaths of Stevens and Smith were due to the failure of the “safe room.”
      –When they couldn’t get in, the attackers set fire to the building out of frustration.
      –Stevens and Smith were safe from the fire.
      –Due to a failure by the building construction contractors, the “safe room” did not have a secure air supply, so they were overcome by smoke. It got too bad, so Smith crawled out the window and was shot. Stevens crawled out, too, but he was NOT shot. He just succumbed to the smoke.
      –Again, if they had followed orders AND the building had been built correctly, no one would have died.

      (5) As you noted, when reinforcements arrived, they were all removed to safety, with no other casualties.

      • Obama speaks Sept 12–ONE day after the attack:

        The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. . . And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. . .there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. . .No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation. . .We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

        • Goethe,

          Until the American people see a copy of the executive order (allowing the military to take the necessary action in Benghazi) and a picture of Obama and his National Security Council in the Situation Room deliberating on how to handle the NUMEROUS requests for assistance, I will not be convinced that the POTUS gave much thought or time to the urgent matter.

          Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

          Ole Hill is looking rough these days. She found the weight that she lost (before the 2008 election) and her face looks tired and beaten down. If it wasn’t for her, who knows where this country would be. She worked harder than the “Chimp and the Imp” Joe Biden, being the Chimp with his perpetual sh*t eating grin and daily gaffs. All that he needs is cymbals to clang whenever he follows the Imp around.

          HillBilly, come clean! Revenge is best served cold and now is your chance to exact some.

          • If I didn’t know better I’d say you two are talking about two different events. Obama said the buck stops with him but Mr Behr seems to think it was all the victims fault.
            I take it they don’t have a stand your ground law in Libya.

            • Billy:

              “Discretion is the better part of valor.” That is, if you see a bunch of wackos with light arms coming your way, it makes much more sense to go to safety than to disobey orders and get killed.

              As for responsibility, Hillary took responsibility and the President took responsibility. EVERYONE up the chain of command bears responsibility, but that won’t bring ’em back.

              At this point, the constructive thing to do is (a) get the killers [which Obama has a good track record on], and (b) do things to make sure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen elsewhere [which is exactly the approach Obama took].

            • Billy:

              It could happen every day, for all that matters. If the soldiers had stood down, as ordered, they would be alive today. That was the entirety of my point, and since the attackers were not able to get through the locks, the people on the inside were safe.

            • After being told twice to refrain from involvement, Woods, Doherty and two others ignored orders and made their way to the main compound, where violence was raging. At this point, the building was on fire and shots were exchanged, however they took action.

              Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire….The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack.

              At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

            • Billy:

              You’re not really falling for this.

              I heard that the two were killed while standing on a roof, as the militants were approaching.

              If it were your way, then they were really wrong for disobeying orders, because the fire didn’t occur until AFTER the rest were safe. So if they stood out in the open when they could have been safe, it was just stupidity.

              As for the “call for military support,” does that really make any sense? Their job was to get the people into the vehicles and to get the vehicles on the road. There’s NO way anybody could have gotten there, even if they were called.

              Here’s a delay for you: The “rapid” response force waited something like a half hour, looking for heavy weapons. They DID go, and they DID get the job done, but it would have been nice if they had taken off right away.

              As Condoleeza Rice said, it’s hard to figure out what’s really happening, since there is so much coming in from so many different sources. It’s a month and a half later, and the various accounts are still very different.

            • Hey we still don’t know what happened with USS Pueblo but we all know where it is.

              Sorry, I’m still with Daisy on this one. And we may never find out what happened until way after the election.

            • Billy:

              And that is precisely my point. Willard was out there, shooting his mouth off before anyone knew what happened, and these people are still shooting their mouths off, and we’re still not sure exactly what happened, and it strikes me as sad that they are trying to make cheap political points off it.

          • Daisy:

            I have had little respect for the weird spin (twist) you put on things, but I would not have thought you were such a blatant racist bigot. We learn something new.

      • The date 9-11 had no significance then? Whether it was carefully planned or sloppily orchestrated, they went after the last flag standing, the last vestige of the west. Everyone else (Int’l red cross and the Britain’s consolate) had pulled out! If it wasn’t a planned attack, then why all the noise, all the blame about the video? You can’t have it both ways….

        • Daisy:

          I know how much joy your getting out of this, but bad things sometimes do happen, and as Condoleeza Rice said, when something like this occurs, you have so much information coming from so many directions that you can either grab some part of the information and go off half-cocked, as Willard did, or you can wait until you have actionable information.

          There is no “blaming the video.” To have an attack occur in two countries at the same time makes it likely that they have the same cause–especially when we a hate0filled person in this country who WANTS to cause bloodshed there. In this case, intelligence suggests that the demonstration in Benghazi was used as a front, but no one could have known that immediately.

          The president spoke the very next day.

          But the important thing is that Obama pledged to find and punish the perpetrators. If we caught them today, you’d say it was an October surprise–and we got the wrong man!! Right?

          As I say, you’re just having too much fun with this.

          However, I do agree with ONE thing you said, and that’s that we should be OUT of the Middle East, unless we are invited, and then only as guests.

          • Yeah right, some things just take time like the Kennedy assassination. Now some of us know just what happened but I’m not one of them. Or how Osama got killed.

            • Billy:

              You know, I don’t think Condy was in on it. Also don’t think Powell was in on it.

              I think that whole WMD snowjob was purposely held to Cheney and a few of his henchmen. They made up the fantasy stories, but the brilliance of it was that they WHISPERED the stories. So it was all hush-hush, and flew around the world like a kid’s game of “telephone.” And since it was all hush-hush, people were hearing the “secret” from several different sources, so they figured it must be true.

              If Cheney had said it in a press conference, they would have laughed him off the stage, but by spreading it quietly, it became an “everybody knows” event. Even Hillary got sucked in.

            • Think you are right as I can’t see everybody falling on the sword to start a war. The President, no problem for him if all his inner circle believe it as he can toss them under the bus when the truth comes out. Smart, real smart, kind of like a prosecutor convicting an innocent man.

          • but no one could have known…………..yeah, no one could have known that those Iranian hostages would not be released until after the election either but I’ll be somebody did. ( released just minutes after the new American president Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.)

          • Goethe,

            You stepped in it when you wrote that I knew nothing about Benghazi.

            Obama needs to fess up and tell what he knew. LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi/#ixzz2AoaJ3Ppg

            Billy ~ If you read the article that I provided, you would have seen that both American and Brittish intelligence thought that Saddam had WMD. There also was a language barrier (only 50 intelligence officers spoke arabic)and Saddam used bravado to intimidate Iran. We do know that he used gas on his own people, so what does that tell you about the man?

            You both fail to see the bigger picture and that our country has been kept relatively safe (if you don’t count 9-11 or the USS Cole)in the last 100 years.

            Would you rather our Country be on this list? http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

            All the other “super powers” are! The cost of Freedom isn’t Free. I come from a military family and two of my nephews have served 4 tours in Afghanistan. One is over there right now. So I take issue when I am called a warmonger, especially from those who have never served nor whose children have never served! The Military are trained for a job and they know the risks and they are willing to take them so that you and I can continue to live in peace in the good ole USA.

            • ” We do know that he used gas on his own people, so what does that tell you about the man?”

              Where did he get the gas? What did Lincoln do to his own people, well over 650,000 of them. Come on now Daisy, Lincoln makes Saddam look like a choir boy.

              But for the sake of argument, what would happen if Bush were to stand on the same balcony that Saddam stood with only 1/2 the amount of people below, armed with the same weapons that were carried when Saddam gave his many speeches. Bush doesn’t have to say a thing, just step out on the balcony with the people he “liberated” below. I think he would find out real quick what “Yankee go home” means. For sure in a box.

            • Billy,

              You mean President Lincoln and the civil war? The war was initially fought because 11 southern states seceded from the Union. The 25 Northern states fought FIRST to preserve the union, not to end slavery (which happened to be the biggest social injustice of that time and one that southerners perpetuated). States going to war is different than one dictator starting a war.

            • The impact on the general population is the same. Dead, dead, & more dead. As you may know old anything for a buck Abe took cases both for and against slavery as a lawyer.

              From your post concerning dictators, I take it you are not a trekker as I am thus I respect your opinion and would never do anything to change it. (Prime Directive) LOL

              Mr Behr is a trekker too.

            • Daisy:

              OK, I’ll change that–you knew a lot of half-truths and untruths, as I later pointed out.

              As for WMDs, as I noted elsewhere, the reason “everybody” thought Saddam had WMDs was due to two factors; (1) WE gave him some, to fight Iran, and (2) a clever whispering campaign spread total fabrications as “secrets” that were then repeated. AS we found later, it was all a lie–but no one has gone back to find exactly who started and spread the lies, and how. And since we did not look into it, it’s quite likely that it will happen again.

          • Billy, aka “Trekker”,

            Resistance is futile, live long and prosper!!!

            My neural pathway has become accustomed to your sensory input, even though we are aligned in two
            different force fields.

            KHAAANNNN!

            Daisy

  64. Barack wants to destroy our Freedoms and our Nation — he is the evil we know!

    But, if Mitt gets into the White House — expect An American Tragedy!

    His 5 Mormon Sons are getting groomed to take over…and create a Dynasty of little Mormon Mitts for decades to come!

    Now, that is truly scary!
    ————————————

    Vote Gary Johnson — do not vote for the lesser of these two evils!

  65. FYI — The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune!

    Now another Mormon could do the same to our entire Nation…if it gets elected!

    Vote for Anyone, but Mitt the American Destroyer!
    ——————————————————————–

    I chose to vote for Ron Paul’s Libertarian Party — Gary Johnson this time, who is on all 50 State Ballots. And should Ron Paul run again in 2016, he’s only option will be the Libertarian Ticket!!!!!

    A Vote for the Libertarian Candidate NOW, is a vote for Ron Paul later!

  66. What about congress? The president only has so much power because of checks and balances but yet it seems like congress is the one that makes the majority of decisions. If congress is going to change Social Security maybe they should be required to have one instead of a pension. Maybe they should be held accountable to every single law or reform they pass. If they don’t understand what it means to cut coupons how can they make positive changes? We need a president who knows how to work bipartisan not just based on an elephant or donkey.

    Just a worried high school kid,
    Seth

    • NO we need a President who knows how to veto spending: Johnson is best known for his veto record, which includes over 750 vetoes during his time in office, more than all other governors combined. Left the state with a billion dollar surplus. Now that is a track record I will indeed vote for.

      • I agree we need a President who knows how to veto spending, but it has to be responsible. I’ll admit I don’t know enough about Johnson enough to make an educated opinion, but in my opinion a president should look to invest the money in areas that will produce positive effects on the nation instead of just “spending”.

        • it has to be responsible.

          Suggest you check him out but not on his website. Hell they all say they can walk on water but this guy can. Don’t look at the guy and don’t listen to the guy, just check out his track record as governor and how he made his money.

  67. Honestly… I am a conservative, but I just look at the facts. Obama… economy has gotten worse over the last 4 years, its facts not opinion. Romney… successful business man who assited in building Companies and thinks giving the states more leadership over there own state, that is actually a really smart idea! The federal government does not need to be deciding Americans every move, this is why its called freedom, freedom of choice, not we will give you freedom for certain things but not others. What if I can’t afford healthcare? Should I be penalized for that? I don’t think so… I think I should have a choice just like everyone else. I do agree that states should be more involved in what is best for their people and not the government, the government should act as an umbrella for the states, protecting them and assisting where there is a need. If I had to choose I would go Romney because although I am sure he isn’t perfect, he has good ideas and is a successful business man, and in order to have a successful America, I think we need a stronger economy or else other countries will and probably do look at us as sad people that can’t help themselves. That is not how we need people looking at us. That’s not to say I totally disagree with Obama on some things, he has done good in some areas, but in most areas he has not, and the economy to me and my family is where he is lacking leadership.

    • Yeah sure, he took all that business experience he gained and used it to extract even more from the people of Ma. Took so much that they finished 47 out of 50 in job growth. The more money government takes from the general circulation the slower business is going to grow.

    • Marianne:

      OK, let’s talk facts. Even Willard’s people acknowledge that the “Great Recession” is like the Great Depression.

      So all the BS about things not being perfect is insane. Let’s compare Obama to Hoover–both of whom faced a depression in their first year:

      UNEMPLOYMENT: Unemployment under Hoover went from 3% to 25%. Under Obama, unemployment did go up, but came back down already–and it never even reached the level it got to under Reagan.

      STOCK MARKET: Under Hoover, the stock market lost 90% (NINETY PERCENT) of its value during his term. Under Obama the stock market has MORE THAN DOUBLED–to record levels.

      CORPORATE PROFITS: Under Hoover, profits tumbled during his whole term. Under Obama, the Fortune 500 recently reported ALL-TIME RECORD profits that easily blew away the previous record–in boom year 2006.

      Now, let’s look at Willard. This so-called “businessman” never ran a business. He only ran a gambling/speculation ring. A full 22% of the companies he touched went bankrupt, and those who survived him were nearly drained dry. If you want an easy way to see how he worked, go here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENd0x4bqqVI

      That shows everything that is wrong with our economic system, all exploited by Willard. And that’s his whole mentality: you can do anything to anyone, as long as you can find a way that’s legal–or at least, that cannot be tracked.

      In Willard mentality, I could see him selling all the gold in Fort Knox (at a discount to his buddies), and selling the Statue of Liberty for copper scrap value (because he seems to value nothing at all).

      • Romney… successful business man who assited in building Companies.

        At what cost? Obama saved GM too but at what cost? Put millions of people back to work too, all those that were holding GM bands for their retirement had to go back to work so a few thousand could continue working but they won’t be for long as that loser is just not competitive, We all know where Chrysler is going to build cars. Thanks for the bail out Mr Obama. Sucker punched again. The government has already sold its shares of Chrysler, incurring a loss of about $1.5 billion. That money can’t be recovered. Will help pay for the move overseas.

        • Billy:

          To you and me, 1.5 Billion bucks is a lot, but to the government, that’s chump change. WE shipped $200 billion a year to Iraq. AND every year, we send a third of a TRILLION to Israel–a gift, no strings attached (and by “no strings” I mean our putting up with a LOT of crap from them).

          So let’s get back to this $1.5B. My guess is that we got that back in NO TIME, because the workers were paying taxes, instead of going on food stamps. That’s Reaganomics–working people pay more taxes.

          • Chump change or not we paid them 1.5 billion and the jobs are going overseas. We should not pay one dime to a company that is going to move. The can hire Mayflower on their own.

            • Billy:

              Dude. What are you saying?? Both the heads of GM AND Chrysler said these arguments are nonsense. Neither company is “moving.” They are EXPANDING. Like it or not, China is a larger market than the U.S., and we can either set up American companies there, or we can become a footnote in history.

              It is a LIE that these companies are “leaving.” They are EXPANDING inside the U.S. and isn’t that really the important thing? Should we really be upset that they are trying to make profit in China, selling our models to the Chinese??

            • If they can be built cheaper overseas they will be imported.

              Toyota accounts for 9 percent of automotive manufacturing jobs in the United States and roughly 16 percent of the vehicle market, while GM accounts for 29 percent of the jobs and about 24 percent of the market,

              From the figures above you can see why GM cannot compete. 9% of Toyota jobs equal 16% market. 29% of GM jobs equal 24% of the market. Just too many employees for too little share of the market.

            • Billy:

              Cherry picking.

              Toyota has 9 percent of the U.S. jobs, but 16% of the U.S. market. That’s partly because they still IMPORT cars from Japan–which have NO American parts at all.

              GM has 29% of the U.S. Jobs, but only 24% of the U.S. market. So where are the rest of the vehicles going? To Canada, Mexico, and to other countries. Wouldn’t you say that was a good thing? Weren’t you just complaining that GM was going to build more vehicles in China for the Chinese market?

            • Like I posted before, if I were still in the market I’d short GM stock if it was only $1.00 a share. That company sucks and it has built some of the most troublesome cars on the road. A company that once produced some of the best replaced by the worst parts ever put on an automobile. I got a North* sitting on my driveway now that was given to me. Transmission is no good either because of relay problems in the valve body. (common problem) Ford puts the relays outside, GM puts them inside. Not to say Ford is any better with some of its ideas.

  68. On a very serious note, and looking at historical facts. Is there someone who can sway me to vote for Obama or Mitt? I am honestly undecided. I’m tipping towards Mitt simply because he is Mormon… every Mormon I have met has been VERY honest, kind, and had a strong moral base.

    • I’d vote for an atheist if I though he could do the job but these two turkeys, no way.
      Biggest cost overrun in American history and who had control of the money, tax payer’s money, you guessed it Romney. (Big Dig) Oh yeah, many became rich, very rich but the taxpayers paid the price. Thirsty for more? vote Romney.

    • Brian:

      I am voting against Romney. If you value honesty, can you REALLY say you haven’t “noticed” all the flip-flopping he has done? He simply has NO ideals. And he doesn’t seem to notice the difference between “truth” and “what will benefit” him.

      He was born with a silver spoon, and has been “ENTITLED” his entire life. He runs this little company that makes billions by ruining other companies, and thinks he can run for U.S. Senate. And during that campaign, he tried to out-Teddy Teddy. Kennedy said if the campaign had lasted two more weeks, Willard would have voted for HIM.

      If you really want to know the Romney mentality, look at this, and imagine his borrowing 95% for what he wants to do in government:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENd0x4bqqVI

      You have to actually SEE that to understand the Willard mentality.

      • Brian, about Romney’s “flip-flopping”– that’s what his profession had trained him. The fast pace business environment is dynamic and somehow unpredictable. So to stay on the top of the game(he has proven records on this so far) he has to adapt the changes, re-strategize himself, re-identify friends/enemies whenever it fits. Good businessman–not sure he understands that running a country, however, needs more than that. There is a sense of the responsibility to the society, a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of fairness to the general public as a part of essential characters.

        Romney! Sorry! As today! I don’t see you a leader who knows directions for this nation and your records do not prove you can be fair to people in this country. You are, after all, a successful businessman knows when to make yourself appealing to people who can help you be more successful.

        • And somehow, President Obama is the leader who knows how to direct this nation? Covering up Benghazi and imprisoning a man who creates a lousy You-tube video? Uh, what about free speech? Now, I personally think it is disrespectful to degrade anyone’s religious beliefs; nonetheless, people who constantly degenerate Christians in this nation are not imprisoned for such an action. How about the President’s failure to send help to our Embassy immediately as they had real time live footage of the attack? How about his lying to the American public about what happened in Benghazi? Withholding documents on Fast and Furious to protect DOJ Holder? Taking credit for the death of Bin Laden when the SEALS did the job, and the military had been seeking him ever since 9/11 under Bush? Just what gives the impression that President Obama is Presidential material?

          Romney is not a flip-flopper. Any individual with critical thinking skills always has to re-evaluate information. As humans we certainly don’t see the whole picture. We generally learn line upon line and this causes us to re-evaluate old ideas and discard them when faced with credible information which refutes previous thoughts. There are people within the black community who voted for Sen. Obama in 2008, but have since found his promises to be empty and his skills to be lacking. Would you call them flip-floppers?

          President Obama came to office with far less experience than Gov. Romney. Sen. Obama had no governing experience, no leadership experience while serving in the State Legislature or in the Senate. He had no budgeting experience then, and he still is lacking in this regard–trillions more in debt is not positive in my estimation. No, you may not like Mitt Romney, but I find no reason to trust the next four years to President Obama.

          Broken promises:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTihf2_GGM&list=PL3WUfK2is1s6g4ituOrjH5CPlwJKhdx41&index=13&feature=plpp_video

          Religious Freedom:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeS1uWWvJFE&feature=g-all-u

          IOWA Newspapers speak:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_REZmA3dGhA&feature=context-gfa

          • “Taking credit for the death of Bin Laden when the SEALS did the job”,

            Uh, I don’t think the kings lead the charge anymore. Not sure when that went out but no more.

            • Billy: Yeah.

              We otta bring that back. You want to start a war? Fine. Put on some body armor and be PERSONALLY in the FRONT line.

              Otherwise, Chicken Hawk, keep yer trap shut.

    • @ Brian: You said, “every Mormon I have met has been VERY honest, kind, and had a strong moral base.” I don’t think you’ll find that Mitt Romney will be any different.

      I think you will find the following article informative about the choices we will be making in this election which will not only impact the next four years, but the next generation,

      http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/11/03/to-gary-johnson-voters-ron-paul-other-write-in-voters-supreme-court-consequences/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MittRomneyCentral+%28Mitt+Romney+Central%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

      Everyone in the end has to vote with their conscience. If what this article points out speaks to values you uphold, listen.

      • Brian: As I noted elsewhere, the court will NOT change if Obama is re-elected, since the two justices most likely to leave first are both outright liberals. However, there would be a dramatic shift in the court if Romney wins and nominates two conservatives, giving them a 7 out of 9 majority (now 5-4).

        As for Willard’s ethics, you should also look at this short and easy to understand video, and ask yourself if that’s the kind of guy you want running our economy, even if most of the things he has been doing are not technically illegal:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENd0x4bqqVI

    • @ Brian, Geothe said, “I just don’t think the Supreme Court is an argument FOR Romney. It’s an argument FOR Obama, since if he is elected, he will just replace his liberal justices or moderate with the same.”

      Brian, it will make a difference. I hate to say it, but Geothe and Billy over the course of this election season have not been in the game to vote for Mitt Romney or President Obama at the ballot box. My conclusion is based on reading months of their comments on different comment boards at this website.

      Geothe says it won’t make a difference if Mitt Romney wins. I strongly disagree with his assertion. Pres. Obama if elected, and given the chance to appoint at least 2 more Supreme Court Justices, will no doubt appoint Liberal ones as he did with his last two appointments to the bench. Liberal justices do not care about the founder’s original intent of the Constitution. They don’t care about established precedent, as the court since the 1960s has often broken precedent by not looking to past court findings, but rather they create new precedents to suit their own political agendas. Liberal justices see no problem with looking to international laws to decide on American court precedent. Do you want American law being decided or influenced by international law? Are you interested in maintaining the status quo? Do you want justices who legislate from the bench–-as we got with Roe v Wade? Do you want justices who see themselves above the legislature of this country (Congress) and make their own laws to suit their own agendas?

      As for me, I am interested in justices who will make sure the Constitution is upheld and is applied using original intent. That is what they have sworn to uphold, as have the President and Congress, and adhering to the Constitution is the standard ALL of them should be held to. Preserving the Republic starts with preserving the integrity of the Supreme Court which is supposed to uphold the Constitution of our country.

      President Obama has said himself that the Constitution is a ‘flawed document’–interesting because Frederick Douglass felt otherwise, and Frederick Douglass was a Republican. As a matter of a fact, you’d have to search hard to find many emancipated or free blacks who were Democrats. President Obama and DOJ Eric Holder are not fit to uphold the laws of this land, Constitution or legislative (see Fast n Furious, 2008 Voter intimidation, Holder seeking to prosecute pro-lifers for counseling abortion seekers). But I digress…

      In the end, everyone has to choose to vote by their conscience. I wish you safe travels to the ballot box on Nov 6th.

      • 4:

        Get a grip. I repeat: the first two justices that are likely to go are Ginsberg (who’s 79 with cancer) and Breyer (who has looked frail for years.

        Take off your propaganda hat for a minute and tell me why and how replacing two liberal justices with two liberal justices will make a difference?? Even with two new liberals, replacing two old liberals, the vote will be the same–5 to 4 for the conservative block.

        • Really?? So it was the conservative block that upheld Obamacare–and damaged religious liberty? Really??

          If you truly support a government run under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, why would you want Liberal justices on the bench? Liberal justices do not care about the original intent of the Constitution. That is what it comes down to for me. Liberal justices can do a lot of damage to integrity of the court. (For all for reasons I previously stated.)

          You may lull yourself into complacency with what you believe, but as I said, in the end, everyone has to choose to vote by their conscience. I wish you safe travels to the ballot box on Nov 6th. 🙂 I’ve already made my choice, and I voted early.

      • 4:

        By the way, thanks for recognizing that Billy and I are not robots for the major parties. You can add Surfisher to the list, as well as DT.

        In the spring, this was a RON PAUL blog. The argument then was why his campaign was failing him so badly.

        Later, we discussed the extreme underhanded tricks the Romney and GOP establishment did to hand the nomination over to Willard, and even at the convention, “passing’ rules to shut up the grass routes.

        I happen to think that Romney is an example of the worst things you could say about our country, but even if I didn’t think he has no character and no unchanging ideals, the crap he pulled on the way to the nomination would be enough to disqualify him.

        And now that he is talking about increasing the safety net for poor people, working for world peace, and singing Kumbaya, My Lord, he is still being championed by people who are oblivious to his bragging about his liberal agenda in Massachusetts–and how he “reached across the aisle” to sign anything they wanted to come up with. Sheep to the slaughter.

        And that’s aside from Willard’s record as a big spender and even BIGGER borrower–getting the largest ever bailout of the Olympics, and then getting a big federal bailout of Massachusetts.

        • @ Goethe:

          If you can’t win with the truth, resorting to lies is always effective. Sorry, not buying the information you’re peddling.

            • Yes, I do, and I have made my choice based on that. You are free to make your choice based on your convictions as well by voting for the candidate of your choice.

              May you have a safe trip to the polls on Nov. 6th. 🙂

            • What am I not buying? Any of it.

              But frankly, the facts are as I see it: you haven’t convinced me in the past 4-5 months, I’ve already voted, and there truly is nothing you can say that will change those facts.

              I respect your right to vote your conscience, I don’t agree with your POV, but it is your right as an American citizen to vote for the candidate you believe will do the most good. It is also mine, and I have exercised it freely.

              May you have a safe trip to the polls on Nov. 6th. 🙂

            • “the most good”, yeah, right, but for who. I’m looking out for me not the guy getting the free cell phone or the defense contractor because either way of those two choices and I pay but get nothing in return.

            • He can’t. You got to understand there are still a lot of people who feel ending prohibition was a big mistake and I’m not just talking about the bootleggers and preachers who were paid by the bootleggers, I mean real people who didn’t make a dime off of it either way. Now I agree keeping them as bootleggers and criminals was better than putting them in out court houses but there is a price for everything.

          • 4:

            I just feel that calling me a liar should be backed up with proof. I have almost always given explanations and links to explain what I have said, so there is no lying involved.

            When I asked you to specify ANYWHERE that I have “lied,” you said I was free to speak. But that was not the question. The question was WHERE have I lied–specify.

            Then you babbled on, complete with emoticons. But emoticons do not eliminate the charge of lying, and you are still under the gun to explain exactly when I have told a lie, so that I can show you EXACTLY why you’re wrong.

            The fact that you are unwilling or unable to do so, proves my point, and in which case a simple apology would be acceptable. I am waiting. [no smiley face here]

            • Let’s see, if I remember correctly, it begins at the point when you go onto your tirade against Romney. Unfortunately, it must be on another page, so I can’t reference your exact words, and truthfully, I think I have spent enough time for tonight going back and forth.

            • The man is just no good. From what he did at Bain to the Big Dig. However I find the man very consistent and spending other people’s money and grabbing a huge chunk for himself in the process

            • The man is just no good. From what he did at Bain to the Big Dig. However I find the man very consistent at spending other people’s money and grabbing a huge chunk for himself in the process

            • Billy:

              Nice to have you back. I worried that the authorities heard what you said about the GOP convention. . .

            • I was up in Chicago so safe from the GOP. Back in Tampa now but GF is in Ky so I got to make another trip soon.

            • Billy:

              Don’t leave her in Kentucky long. Some slick southern Colonel might swoop in and take her away, and she’ll be gone with the wind.

            • AS I know a few of her past BFs if she can do better, I’d be the last to hold her back but I for one never look back when it comes to old GFs. We both have long track records.

            • Billy:

              Well, if she has “old GFs,” too, then maybe you don’t have to worry about the Kentucky Colonels. . .

            • No, most of them are paying child support and/or alimony payments. The last couple were married and lied.

            • @Goethe, here it is. I see no credible links to back any of the charges against Romney up. I guess you must either think it is common knowledge, or that I will just take your word for it. Sorry, I don’t, and yes, I believe your charges are untrue. If that is calling you a liar, so be it.

              “Later, we discussed the extreme underhanded tricks the Romney and GOP establishment did to hand the nomination over to Willard, and even at the convention, “passing’ rules to shut up the grass routes.

              I happen to think that Romney is an example of the worst things you could say about our country, but even if I didn’t think he has no character and no unchanging ideals, the crap he pulled on the way to the nomination would be enough to disqualify him.

              And now that he is talking about increasing the safety net for poor people, working for world peace, and singing Kumbaya, My Lord, he is still being championed by people who are oblivious to his bragging about his liberal agenda in Massachusetts–and how he “reached across the aisle” to sign anything they wanted to come up with. Sheep to the slaughter.

              And that’s aside from Willard’s record as a big spender and even BIGGER borrower–getting the largest ever bailout of the Olympics, and then getting a big federal bailout of Massachusetts.”

              I have spent no time bashing your candidate (Gary Johnson). Resorting to those tactics is always a big turnoff–it was one of the things that got in the way of my supporting Ron Paul–the constant negativity and condescending attitude from his followers. I could like Ron Paul when he spoke for himself, but when his supporters spoke, he lost my vote.

            • You must be looking on Romney’s website: And please bash all you want about Gary Johnson. Right he didn’t win all the iron men contests he entered. Right. He didn’t climb Mount Everest in record time. Go ahead.

              As for dirt on Romney……….dump truck loads……….Romney also proposed cuts in state expenditures for Medicaid, the government program providing health care for the poorest state residents. The cuts included caps in payments to medical providers (one example being through limiting payments for hospital stays to 20 days, no matter how sick the patient), increased stringency of the criteria for Medicaid eligibility, and rationing of access to higher-priced medications for Medicaid patients.[14] Some 36,000 Massachusetts residents lost their Medicaid eligibility.[15] The 2003 emergency budget revision proposal also included funding cuts affecting public colleges and universities, treatment for schizophrenic and other mentally ill patients, and various other social services.[16][14]

            • 4:

              We have discussed these details to death over the past five months. There has been a lot of documentation over that time. I was just repeating the end result.

              If you are going to call me a liar, it really is up to YOU to document where any of these point is NOT true.

              Seriously–innocent until proven guilty? Or is that one of the constitutional points you find inconvenient and therefore, unnecessary?

              If you are going to call me a liar, you need to do one of two things: (1) document how you can prove that I lied, or (2) apologize.

              I’m waiting.

            • Ah, yes, and the tag team begins in the schoolyard brawl.

              @ Billy and Goethe, vote your conscience, I’ve already done my civic duty.

              Goethe, NO, I do not have to prove anything, as you have not proven your assertions to me over the last five months–youtube videos spliced together, or put out by those who obviously don’t support Romney don’t mean anything to me (Young Turks for example). No, I haven’t gotten all of my information from the Romney website. But where I have gotten my information from is credible enough for me. Just as you are quite sure your sources are credible enough for you. However, I have not considered your sources credible. Go on being incensed, for all I care. You are the one to talk about character defamation–you believe what you want and smear Romney, and that’s just telling the truth in your mind. Well, I don’t believe your version of the truth.

              And as far as ranting–now that’s the pot calling the kettle black! Rant all you want about how 2-2+2 =2. You obviously can’t stand–and have no respect for–any opposing POV that doesn’t suit your agenda.

              Don’t bother responding–I have a life that I must attend to outside of political arguments with you.

            • $:

              This has nothing at all to do with Romney at this point. This is you and me. It’s personal. You called me a liar. Period. At this point, you may either (1) prove it, or (2) apologize.

              Likewise, 2 – 2 + 2 = 2 is not something you can argue. It’s a fact and it’s the truth, and if you cannot disprove millennia of math, you have to agree that the formula is true.

              But I’ll make this one easy on you. A civilized person would have said, “Yeah, I know that replacing two liberal judges with two other liberal judges won’t change the vote count on our polarized court.” Would that have been so hard? Then you can to on to your rant that you want to kill all liberals, or whatever your point is. You obviously want to “pack the court,” but I’d rather have judges with opposing views, so that we have at least SOME chance at justice.

            • Seems pretty clear cut to me but there have been a few cases where the prez has said the appointment was a big mistake. Don’t remember which prez it was that said it was the worst mistake I made as prez when he appointed one of them shysters to the bench. I’d sure toss that up to you if I were he and tell you your math is sometimes flawed.

              Reaching for straws. LOL

            • Billy:

              I think you’re thinking of IKE, who made former Republican governor Earl Warren chief justice. The “Warren Court” really put the government in the frying pan.

              And I guess that would be an argument in my favor. If there are two outgoing liberal justices, and Obama names two new liberal justices, he cannot be guaranteed that they would vote as expected. So the best Obama could expect would be maintaining the 5-4 split.

              Here’s another consideration: Just as everywhere else, Supreme Court Justices enjoy the limelight. Sandra Day O’Connor was named by Reagan, but she became the “swing” justice, who sometimes allied with the liberals, especially in women’s rights.

              When she left the court, the job of “swing” justice fell to Kennedy, who still maintains his conservative credentials, but is actively courted by both sides to vote with them.

              It’s like today–there are a lot of people who call themselves “undecided” in this election because they know if they tell their decision, they will thereafter be ignored. Also, there are the swing states, which are making windfall profits, because both parties are pouring money into them. If the polls showed them “decided” they’d be “nobodies,” like the rest of us.

            • @Goethe: It amazes me how you can throw out character assassinating statements such as you did and then become so indignant at being told, I think that your assertions are lies. You may not believe they are untrue; however, that does not mean I have to accept the information from you as the truth–since you did not back up any of it with sources. I don’t know where you got your information. I have NO reason at all to believe that your statements are true, period.

              If stating that I feel the information is false offends you, then you have two choices, 1) back up your statements with cold hard credible facts; or 2) don’t provide the credible back up, get over your offense and move on. Sorry, you made the first ‘accusations’ about Mitt Ronmey’s character and so presenting the burden of proof is on your side, not mine. You have not proven Mitt Romney is guilty of what you believe to be true about him. Therefore, I don’t feel bound to come to the same conclusions as you have, and believe that what you stated was true.

            • 4:

              If I have ever not provided a source or link, it’s only because I provided it sometime in the past 8 or 9 months.

              If you can pick out one “lie,” I can prove that it is not, but at the very least, you need to specify a “lie.”

              And yes, I am VERY hostile toward you, because you have not given me the slightest respect, and therefore, it is very hard to show you any in return.

              You cannot even admit that 2 – 2 + 2 = 2, for cryssake. The Ancient Greeks wouldn’t even argue that, and yet you expect respect?

              And then you call me a LIAR and yet are incapable or unwilling to even point out ONE so-called lie, and you expect respect?

              You simply have not earned it. And while I apologize if my anger has slipped into ad hominem, I’m sure a disinterested third party would fully understand.

              If you cannot at least agree on basic arithmetic, it shows that you have absolutely no intention to be civil.

            • 4:

              As usual, you are being vague and elusive, hoping that I will just give up.

              I see “any of it” and I see “tirade against Romney” those certainly don’t count.

              Later, I see
              (1) “dirty tricks,”
              (2) “passing rules to stifle the grass roots,”
              (3) his increasing promises of everything to everybody,
              (4) his warmongering all spring and suddenly trying to sound like the peace candidate (for crysssake)
              (5) his big spending, big borrowing, and getting giant federal bailouts.

              (A) Are these the items to which you refer?
              (B) Are you serious??
              (C) If I rub your nose in it, will you then change the subject and dance around, as you have so far?

            • I’d say that is indeed a pretty accurate description of Willard but it might get confused with a number of politicians. I know he left Ma. deeper in the hole then when he started and for sure he can do for America what he did for Ma. no problem. The guy was 50 out of 50 in per capita debt. He did get beat out on the job creation issue though. 47 out of 50.

            • @Goethe, do what you want with the information–I don’t believe your assertions–and really at this point, I don’t care if you want to respond or not. I’ve not been vague–I had copied your statements into a previous comment to you. No matter what I say you’ll find a way to accuse me of doing or saying something else. If you have understood nothing else that I have said, I hope you’ll finally get this,

              I’ve already voted, and it will make no difference what you say. My vote has been cast, and I don’t believe in voting twice in the same election!

              If you want to have the last word, go ahead. Post away. But please don’t hold your breath waiting for another response from me to you on this series of comments.

              May you travel safely to the polls to cast your ballot for the candidate of your choice!

            • 4:

              You just don’t call a person a liar without specifying the item and offering proof.

              Lying has two parts: First, there is relaying false information, and Second, that act must be intentional.

              I have provided links and explanations for any and all claims that I have made. You have only made baseless charges, and refused to specify. When I asked you whether you were speaking of certain points, you even refuse to confirm that.

              You are clearly running away, because you know that (a) I can prove the veracity of my claims, and (b) there is no reason to doubt my honor and integrity–but you have.

              In speech, that’s slander; in print, that’s libel.

            • No, I have not slandered you so stop the whining. And if this is how you can continually twist my words, I don’t know why under heaven you can think I would take anything you say at face value.

              You wrote the words. You go look for the that previous post where I responded by putting it IN QUOTES NO LESS what I thought to be untrue. If that is too difficult for you to find it is not my problem. I had to hunt for your post, but I did it and I will not do it again. So now you spend the next 24 hours demanding that I be even more specific–I’m not bothering.

              You have not, at any point, AFTER you made such accusations EVER provide links refuting my belief that the information you spouted is untrue. Is this all you do all day, pick fights and continue to demand that you are RIGHT??

              You, in my opinion, are guilty of slander because you made threw the allegations against Romney, without any credible evidence. And just because you have liked minded people on this blog that believe it, doesn’t make it true.

              You libertarians are always so bitter. It is pointless to talk to you. Your behavior and constant schoolyard bullying reflects poorly on your party and I want no part of it. You don’t know how to respect the opinions of anyone else unless it is similar to your own. And don’t come back with that I (4theRepublic) didn’t show any respect by calling your statements a lie–which is a whole different ballgame from calling YOU liar. That I never did. I said the information is a lie (as I see it and I have no reason to believe it to be true). Your attacks on Mitt Romney showed no respect whatsoever, and I believe them to be false.

              Again, do something useful, go vote.

            • 4:

              The things you wrote were not specified, so I followed up with a list, to make sure I had the right details.

              All you had to do is say, yes, provide sources for those items. But of course, instead of responding directly–yes or no–you ran off in some other direction. And that’s the problem with this whole discussion–you simply cannot or will not give me a direct answer to any question.

              So if you like I will repeat, are THOSE the items you want documentation for? I don’t want to waste a lot of time and then have you say, “oh, no, that’s not what I meant.”

              But I still think that’s unfair, since I should be innocent until proven guilty. If you are the one charging a lie, it’s not enough to say it’s a lie. You have to provide documentation proving that it is NOT true.

            • The Reality: Governor Romney left behind a $1 billion budget deficit for the next governor and saddled Massachusetts taxpayers with more debt per person than any other state. Yep, 47 out of 59 in job growth and 59 out of 50 in per capita debt. Just like he ran the companies he took over while at Bain.

            • Billy:

              As I noted elsewhere, Romney is the KING of debt and bailouts. He got an unheard-of bailout from the feds for the Mormon Olympics, and got another huge federal bailout of Massachusetts by George Bush, borrowed up to 95% of the purchases by Bain Gambling House, and literally purchased the ONE small-liberal-state office he ever held.

              The guy has a total sense of Entitlement (like Rockefeller), while at the same time, seeing himself as a Victim (like Nixon), going back to his dad’s run in 1968.

            • I don’t like the guy either because of Seamus. Then you can’t get a straight answer as to what happened to the mutt. (he was an Irish Setter)

            • Billy:

              Probably YEARS of pooch therapy–all fully deductible, of course, and probably covered by Oromneycare, anyway. . .

            • Now you well know that ain’t never going to happen. I’d rather have him bash Gary so I don’t have to go out and vote tomorrow. That is if I find any truth in said bashing.

            • Billy:

              You know very well that it is your civic DUTY to go vote–in order to cancel out the vote of your girlfriend. . .

            • Sure wish they still had the literacy test so she couldn’t vote. She will vote for one person in every office running even though she has no idea about the person of even what the office does. Now if I vote I will vote only for one person and one person only as I just don’t have the time to research each person I might vote for. Many vote just because they like the name but if you can’t read………….I’m at a loss for words.

            • Billy:

              Have you ever seen the Eddie Murphy movie, The Distinguished Gentleman? In it, a senator dies during a. . .romantic interlude. His name is Jeff Johnson, which is Murphy’s middle and last name. So he gets on the ballot, and people elect him because the recognize the name.

              It’s a funny movie, but there are some VERY good points made, too.

            • Billy:

              What made this movie stand out is that it began with a child with cancer, so Murphy was determined to move the high voltage power lines that went over the top of the local school.

              But when he meets with the lobbyists, they point out that schools are often placed in “undesirable” places, because there’s so little money for education. Then, that everyone wants electricity, but don’t want wires near them, so how do you get the juice? In addition, they talked about all the jobs that would be lost. Powerful arguments, all.

              Suddenly, he realized that there are no “simple” issues, and he stopped his campaign for the cancer-girl.

              The movie was also a good argument against term limits, since this new senator had NO idea what he was doing. He had to rely on his professional (bureaucratic) staff to do his job. THEN, as a new guy, he was easy pickin’s for the lobbyists.

              Yes, it was fiction, but how could reality be any different? And that is how I see term limits, too: a good idea that doesn’t work in the real world of lifetime staff and power-by-lobby.

  69. In Romney we have an experienced businessman who, if nothing else, has probably forgotten more about what it takes to run a successful and profitable enterprise than Barack Obama will ever know in his entire life. Obama likened his brief stint in the private sector, the only real job the man has ever held, to “working behind enemy lines.” His massive investment failures are reflective of the fact that he not only harbors a deep contempt for business, but has never so much as operated a lemonade stand.

    The Obama White House threatened the U.S. bishops conference, suggesting that it heed the “voices of enlightened accommodation” (i.e. traitorous apostates) within the Church rather than, and this was unsaid but obviously implied, continue their annoying campaign to exist as authentic Catholics. In spite of the obviously false claims that the mandate was sufficiently altered to respect religious freedom, the bishops, other Catholic institutions, and individual business owners have filed numerous lawsuits against the administration. Resistance continues even well after the supposed “accommodation” from pulpits all across America, in Catholic churches, Protestant churches, Jewish synagogues, even Islamic mosques, if reports such as this one are accurate. People of good will, religious or not, who are concerned about the condition of liberty in the United States have rallied en masse against Obama’s repressive reproductive bureaucracy. One thing that can be said about Mitt Romney is that he will almost certainly and hopefully immediately eradicate these policies.

    Then there is the matter of property rights, closely related with the overall economic condition. Like the rest of the vagocracy, Obama believes that your unwillingness to pay for Sandra Fluke’s Yaz implant, to which she has a divine and inalienable right, is tantamount to your depriving her of it. Your property is not your own. At the end of your work week or month, it belongs to Obama, becoming a part of his infinite “stash“, and only when he has distributed as much of it as he pleases to those whom he pleases (and please him) will he allow you to pretend that it is yours. Of course a Romney administration will also collect taxes, but at least Romney has promised to eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses, which ought to result in significant job creation.

    There is still something to be said about the way Obama has bungled the Benghazi situation. I suppose it isn’t as much a foreign policy blunder as it is a sign of deep corruption within the administration, all the way up to the President himself. In any case, it appears as if the regime has no legitimate excuse or defense for its actions, or lack thereof, regarding the assault on the U.S. embassy. For several days various public officials blatantly mislead the American public about its causes.

    All Romney really has to do for me to be at least placated, in the end, is not antagonize Russia with a missile shield and not start a war with Iran. I would ask that he not arm Christian-hating Al Qeda rebels in Syria and other countries with stinger missiles and AK-47s, but that would be too much. America is committed to empire, all the more so because, unlike other empires, it doesn’t acknowledge that it is an empire. That’s an icky word. Good guys don’t have empires!

    • Yeah but that type of business experience (destructive) resulted in Ma being 47 out of 50 in job growth and Romney hiked fees for everything right through the ceiling. A tax by any other name is still a tax. 47 out of 50 is a loser in my book. Why can’t we put one of the top 10 in. We sure had the chance but the voters rejected them all.

    • Jensen:

      I hate to use the expression “drink the Kool-Aid®,” so I’ll say, don’t tell me that you fell for the magic underwear. . .

      First, I can’t believe that Romney calls himself a “businessman.” He ran this teeny-tiny, little group of blood-thirsty raiders, who sucked the wealth OUT of companies, 22% of which went bankrupt–massive investment failures,” showing “deep contempt for REAL businesspeople. I keep repeating, but you canNOT understand it without seeing this simple and fun explanation:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENd0x4bqqVI

      Second, when it comes to taxes, Romney goes for the MOST regressive. In Massachusetts, he raised government income with huge tax increases on–DRIVER’S LICENSE, GUN PERMITS, GAS TAX. And he increased the CAPITAL GAINS tax, if that’s what you want.

      Third, UNFUNDED MANDATES, he did cut in Massachusetts, but he just SHIFTED the taxes from the state to cities, so property taxes had to increase by six percent–yet another regressive tax. SLEIGHT of HAND.

      Fourth, Romney is the KING of DEBT. (A) At Bain, he borrowed 95% on his gambling purchases–often pocketing ALL that money, and transferring the debt to the company books. (B) At the Olympics, he got an unheard-of federal loan. (C) As governor, yes, he raised $300 Million in taxes–but George Bush gave him a $500 Million of YOUR tax dollars to BAIL OUT his state. Since then, he has not bothered to take the risk of getting a job, but has, again, spent outrageous sums–up to 17 times his opponents in the primaries.

      Fifth, of course–he was the one who came up with ORomneycare. Now, as with everything else, he was for it before he was against it.

      Yep, Romney’s your man if you want someone who (a) destroys businesses, (b) raises taxes on guns, gas, and cars, (c) will do massive borrowing for all the new programs he has proposed, and (d) flip around like a large-mouth bass in a wooden rowboat.

      • Gee even I didn’t know the guy was that bad. Guess we should be getting the tar a feathers ready. No problem finding a rail and volunteers to carry the bum out of town. How much you figure he weighs? Think we should use 4 guys anyhow.

  70. .
    The Minister of Propaganda has spoken:

    Fox News and Wall Street Journal owner, Rupert Murdoch, sent New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie a warning message on Friday, telling Christie to reaffirm his support for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

    • 4:

      It should be a bigger motivating factor for the left. Of the four you mention, two are liberal, one is swing, and only ONE is conservative.

      I seriously doubt that Scalia is anywhere near death. He’s still so feisty. If I were to guess, I’d say Ginsberg and Breyer will be first to go. Neither of them seem to be in the best of shape. And while Kennedy is the same age as Breyer, he’s in much better shape.

      So if Obama wins, the court will probably remain dominated by conservatives, as it has been for many years. The court will only change if Romney wins.

      HERE’S WHAT I THINK. The Supreme Court should NOT be a partisan pit of vipers. I think Senators should agree that FROM NOW ON, all justices must pass a SUPER MAJORITY, and you can have any excuse to vote someone down. However, the votes should be pubic, so we can ask why they voted that way.

      This would only require agreement, not a constitutional amendment, since a 60-senator vote is just a filibuster number. They would have to have a “gentleman’s agreement” to allow bumping it up to 66 or 75, but it would be good for the Republic. Maybe even allow a veto, say, if ten senators object.

      If we had to have a super-majority to pass a Supreme Court nominee, we’d be much more likely to stop the political games. And it has gotten much worse. Presidents are now trying to pick KIDS, so they’ll be on the court until long after we’re dead. they used to pick someone because he or she was, imagine this, the most qualified.

      The Supreme Court should not be a rubber stamp for either party. I’d love to have the outcomes of cases based on the strength of the argument, not who bought the justices their seat. . .

  71. Well Geothe, you put forward some interesting solutions, and I think they are good ideas. However, at the end of the day your ideas are not the current reality of the situation. As you have stated, it doesn’t take a super-majority and unless you know of discussion and legislation on the table now for such an arrangement it will matter little in the next four years. It only takes a 5-4 vote, and that’s how we got more federal govt intrusion with Obamacare, and judicial activism “birthing” Roe v Wade.

    As I am sure you understand, Presidents try to nominate Supreme Court justices whose apparent ideology reflects the President’s–so it comes down to do you (or I, or Brian) agree with Pres. Obama’s ideology and do we want it to shape the next X amount of decades?

    I consider the address to be a well thought out and a strong argument for all to choose wisely who give the next four years to.

    In the end, everyone has to choose to vote by their conscience.

    • 4:

      I just don’t think the Supreme Court is an argument FOR Romney. It’s an argument FOR Obama, since if he is elected, he will just replace his liberal justices or moderate with the same.

      But even without a new understanding, the Senate still has veto power. This senate has used the filibuster 500 times, more than the rest of history combined. I am sure they will not allow anyone who is not moderate.

      We have had 29 nominees fail to be confirmed, most famously, Abe Fortas and Robert Bork.

      The Senate didn’t reject Obama’s two nominees, but they could have. The final vote was barely over 60, and you know there were senators who voted for them who would have upheld a filibuster, if one had occurred. But they were just replacing moderate Souter and liberal Paul Stevens.

      The next likely resignation will be Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is 79 years old AND has pancreatic cancer. So liberals have a much stronger argument that electing Obama will just maintain his minority status on the court.

      • @ Geothe: “I just don’t think the Supreme Court is an argument FOR Romney. It’s an argument FOR Obama, since if he is elected, he will just replace his liberal justices or moderate with the same.

        I strongly disagree. Liberal justices do not care about original intent. Liberal justices see no problem with looking to international laws to decide on American court precedent. I am not interested in American law being decided or influenced by international law. I am not interested in maintaining the status quo, I am interested in justices who will not legislate from the bench–as we got with Roe v Wade. I am interested in justices who do not see themselves above the legislature of this country and make their own laws to suit their own agendas. I am interested in justices who will make sure the Constitution is upheld and is applied using original intent. That is what they have sworn to uphold, as have the President and Congress, and adhering to the Constitution is the standard ALL of them should be held to. Preserving the Republic starts with preserving the integrity of the Supreme Court which is supposed to uphold the Constitution of our country.

        President Obama has said himself that the Constitution is a ‘flawed document’–interesting because Frederick Douglass felt otherwise, and Frederick Douglass was a Republican. As a matter of a fact, you’d have to search hard to find many emancipated or free blacks who were Democrats. President Obama and DOJ Eric Holder are not fit to uphold the laws of this land, Constitution or legislative (see Fast n Furious, 2008 Voter intimidation, Holder seeking to prosecute pro-lifers for counseling abortion seekers). But I digress…

        Again, I consider the address to be a well thought out and a strong argument for all to choose wisely who to give the next four years to.

        In the end, everyone has to choose to vote by their conscience.

        • 4: The point was that if you replace the two old liberal judges with two new liberal judges, the balance stays the same–in favor of conservatives.

          If you replace them with conservatives, you end up with an automatic 7-2 court, and nothing will get a fair hearing.

          • Geothe, I have no trouble seeing your point. My point is, I disagree with it. Liberal justices want to legislate from the bench, they couldn’t care less about original intent. They could uphold Obamacare and restrict the religious freedom of the Catholic Church (and others) to choose what benefits they will allow their employees?

            A vote for President Obama is NOT a vote for religious liberty as the founders intended, nor a vote for freedom for American citizens as evidenced by the jailed youtube scapegoat.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeS1uWWvJFE&list=PL3WUfK2is1s6g4ituOrjH5CPlwJKhdx41&index=14&feature=plpp_video

            • 4:

              You can talk all the propaganda you want.

              I’m talking simple arithmetic.

              If you lose two liberals and add two liberals, the total is EXACTLY the same as where you started.

              Now you can psychoanalyze and pontificate and blahter all you want–but

              ……………..2 – 2 + 2………………

              gets you right back where you began.

              That’s all I’m saying, and that’s all I will argue.

            • Actually, it doesn’t matter to me what his reason was. It is his decision to choose who he was going to vote for–whatever the reason, and I am sure Surfisher believes his reasons are the best reasons. I don’t have a problem with that. I only poked because of the constant Ron Paul supporters chant–“Mitt Romney’s a flip-flopper.”

            • 4:

              I came up with TRIPLE-FLIPPIN’ MITTEN, because he doesn’t stop with just one flip-flop. Sometimes he goes back to his original position, but more often, he just twists and spins into three or four stands on the same issue.

              That’s also why I came up with Romney Roulette.

            • You said, “You can talk all the propaganda you want. I’m talking simple arithmetic. If you lose two liberals and add two liberals, the total is EXACTLY the same as where you started. Now you can psychoanalyze and pontificate and blahter all you want–but ……………..2 – 2 + 2……………… gets you right back where you began. That’s all I’m saying, and that’s all I will argue.”

              Well, thank you. I am glad you don’t wish to argue, I was really starting to worry. But for the record, I can count, and I can read, and I told you I understood all of that. Why is it so hard for you to understand someone disagrees with you? You say all’s we do is exchange 2 Libs for 2 Libs. I say it is bigger than that, it is about liberty, and choosing 2 Libs does not enhance the integrity of the Supreme Court. So it may be an even Steven exchange for you, but to those who believe the Supreme Court should make their decisions based on original intent, it is a big deal. You choose to minimize that, but no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t change the result. Liberals vote for what they want, not for what the founders of the Constitution intended. And you don’t invite wolves to guard the chicken coop.

              May you have safe travels to the polls on Nov 6. 🙂

            • 4:

              because

              2 – 2 + 2 = 2

              Everything else you’re saying is total bullsh*t which you may or may not believe.

              But you cannot argue

              2 – 2 + 2 = 2

              And no quantity of paranoid hysteria is going to change that.

              And for the newcomers, we’re talking about the supreme court, which is now 5-4 conservative. Two liberals are likely to leave the court in the foreseeable future. My point is that if the 2 are replaced by 2, there is NO change, and “4the” just can’t handle the first-grade level arithmetic.

            • Temper, temper, Geothe.

              This is why it so so hard to present an opposing point of view to liberals and libertarians, it seems you cannot fathom someone not agreeing with your all-knowing wisdom. You cannot fathom we’d have a brain of our own, can think for ourselves, have evaluated the issues, and then actually made a decision based on that research–ignoring your coercion. So you resort to fits of temper and bad language. Unfortunate.

              May you travel safely to the polls on Nov. 6. 🙂

            • 4:

              Yes, I am angry, but it has nothing to do with “temper.” It has to do with (a) character assassination, and (b) your refusal to even agree that 2 – 2 + 2 = 2.

              That was my point, and that was all I was asking. Instead of accepting that very basic truth–from which reasonable people might move on to understanding–you keep going off on a rant about your delusions about Armageddon if you don’t get what you want.

              Personally, I do NOT want all liberal judges and I do NOT want all conservative judges. (1) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and (2) Believe it or not, with your tunnel-vision, you are incapable of seeing a truth spoken by your opponent, and if we have judges with the same tunnel-vision, they will never be able to see the truths anyone brings to them–if they don’t fit their preconceived notions.

              And, yes, your refusal to accept first grade arithmetic DOES show your tunnel-vision.

            • Billy:

              Yeh. Both “sides” are wrong. That’s why the ideal is to have a system that allows an easy veto of any nominee. That would give us neutral justices, who look at the law, rather than party talking points.

              An alternative would be to have an EQUAL number of judges with opposing viewpoints–force them into beating each other up until they can reach a conclusion they can both live with. That might be fruitful, since both “sides” have delusions to prove.

              I do NOT want a conservative court majority, and I do NOT want a liberal court majority.

            • Billy:

              I don’t know if I’d call them “dishonest,” but I can’t say that I have been impressed with any I’ve come into contact with. I had the divorce, of course, and even though my ex wasn’t even there, the judge made up the rules totally different from what I had asked. Then my ex sued me, and the judge didn’t let me tell my side. Again, he just decided the outcome after only hearing her side. The same for landlord stuff. I went to court to HELP the renter, and the judge still slapped me down. I’ve never run into a judge who LISTENED.

            • Oh they listen alright, just hire the right lawyer, the one that contributes to his re election and you will get justice but it isn’t free. Them shysters don’t come cheap.

            • Seriously?? Goethe, I already said I understood what you were getting at, it was a wash. Just because I don’t agree with the implications of the wash you have continued to banter back and forth about it. I never even implied anything near an “Armageddon” scenario.

              You don’t mind liberal justices, I do. I also explained why. And yes, my points are just as valid as yours, though you may feel otherwise. I will add, words such as, “total b/s (might that not be called a LIE?), paranoid hysteria, ranting, can’t handle first grade arithmetic, delusions” are offensive, and are stated to discredit anything I have said. Do I really care? No. My point is, you don’t believe my POV is valid–or truthful since you call it #@!– and neither do I believe yours POV is valid regarding Mitt Romney.

            • 4:

              I do not remember your saying, “well, yeah, I guess it’s a wash.” If you did, my guess is that it was seven words in a 300 word diatribe, so I missed it. If so, I’m sorry, but seriously, folks if you replace two of a kind with two of a kind, it IS a wash, But as I noted to Billy, there have been cases of having a “liberal” or “conservative” justice become at least a “moderate” after being confirmed, so even if Obama gets a chance to replace the two liberals, he can’t really know how they’ll vote the following year. So the best he can hope for is continuing a 5-4 minority. That’s also just simple math.

              It all started because you were trying to make it sound as if we had to vote for Willard because otherwise there would be a change in the Supreme Court, and yes, that simply is NOT true. I’m not calling you a liar, and I never have, but your conclusions are a leap-of-faith from the facts.

  72. The most helpful thing we can do for our economy is never raise minimum wage because (1) it would reduce inflation; (2) it would increase small business opportunities; and (3) contrary to those who promote the alternative increasing minimum wage, it pushes jobs to other countries in turn raising the unemployment rate.

    • I. The simple law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction stays true even with the economic factor of minimum wage and might be the best way to explain how it would reduce inflation.
      a. If the employer has to pay each of their employees a dollar more, they have to make a dollar more per employee to afford to pay them.
      i. An example of this cause and effect is the Riverside Deli a DBA of Ball Storage located in Idaho Falls.
      i. With the steep wage increase from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour the Riverside Deli, had to increase the cost of their sandwich from $3.75 to $4.50.
      ii. The food service business that supplies Riverside Deli also had to increase the cost of bread and meat to cover their additional labor costs in turn causing the deli to a year later raise the price an additional $0.49 bringing the sandwich to $4.99.
      b. This principal of increasing the minimum wage which in turn raises the cost of the product holds true in all types of companies, this is something I refer to as inflation 101

    • This country thrived for many years without a minimum wage. Now the minimum wage is here to stay, and as a matter of political reality, it can never be decreased or frozen — and certainly not eliminated.

      The minimum wage was originally intended to be a fair wage for entry-level, menial, unskilled labor that anybody could do. It was never intended to be enough to feed an entire family or put the kids through college. For that you need a good job — one that only comes from experience, education, and stable employment.

      The minimum wage (like most other government intervention) does more harm than good. And if you’ll look around at the grocery store, or a fast food restaurant, you’ll see there are plenty of people who demonstrate that the minimum wage is too high already.

      Notice if you will that whenever the minimum wage is discussed on television “news” programs, they’ll always show footage of welders, construction workers, auto mechanics and other blue collar workers, none of whom earn the minimum wage.

      You can look up video of OBAMA almost anywhere on the net saying he will raise MINIMUM wage every year he is in office! THANK GOD HE DIDN’T FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT PROMISE!!!

      • Shel: You can argue that paying people is an unnecessary expense, but you can’t argue that the minimum wage is now intended “to be enough to feed an entire family or put the kids through college.”

        The minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. That’s $15,000 per year. You might be able to pay rent, taxes, food, car, gas, medical, and other very basic expenses, but it’s just insulting to suggest that the minimum wage could pay the ever higher costs of college and other wild luxuries.

        • I agree it’s not enough to full support. Which is ok! It pushes people to become more skilled and better educate

          • Shel: I’m just saying, get a grip, people. Minimum wage is no picnic.

            And while it would be great for people to “become more skilled and better educate,” a low minimum wage is the opposite of that goal.

    • We know from the records that the welfare rolls have increased exponentially under Obama. Recently, changes were made by Presidential Executive Order to redefine “work” allowing even more applicants for welfare to be added to the welfare rolls. Why? Could it be the Obama Administration is deliberately attempting to “crash” the US welfare system? If so, why? I contend that is exactly what is happening. If I an [sic] correct, then we are actually seeing the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” at work. We are observing the foundation, the groundwork, if you will, for establishing a guaranteed annual (minimum) income for American citizens.

      • Increasing minimum wage will never help benefit our economy; while only momentarily boosting the confidence of the unskilled and unemployed, it slowly pushes our economy into a deeper recession.

        • Brian: You can argue against the minimum wage, but you canNOT claim that putting money into the hands of the poor will cause recession.

          When poor people get money, they spend it immediately. I’m sure you have criticized them for that, right?

          But what immediate transfer of money does is increase demand, corporations then see the opportunity to cash in, so they increase production–and if ABSOLUTELY necessary–they’ll even (believe it or not) hire somebody.

          So getting more money in the hands of the poor is really the fastest, strongest way to jump-start the economy.

          • And where do you suggest we get that money. Just printing it for the purpose would cause mass inflation. Or do you expect to increase obamas already doubled national debt?

            • Shel:

              People go to work. People work while they are there. Their work produces a product. The company takes that product to market. People buy it. The company takes that money, gives a portion of it to the workers who produced the product.

              Those workers then go home. They buy stuff. That causes demand. The demand means overtime, so the workers get more money. They go home and spend MORE money. That causes more demand, and the company FINALLY breaks down and hires people.

              The new people work and get paid, and they increase the demand, which increases the need for more overtime (and as a positive last resort) additional workers. And the cycle continues until the money flying around forces companies to hire more people.

              If the minimum wage goes up, the workers have more money, they spend more money, and the economy gets stronger.

              Yes, you’re right, printing money will have a similar effect–but that’s YOUR idea, not mine.

            • Shel:

              I cannot believe that you are that ignorant of economics.

              You seem to think that people don’t get anything unless the government gives it to them.

              If you bothered to read my prior post, you’d see how the money goes through the system. If the system is working right, there’s a balance of supply and demand, so there is no inflation. Inflation comes when there is not enough supply, so companies increase the price (because they can).

              But to answer your basic question: When you put labor into a raw material, you change it from a cheap product to a more expensive product. THAT is where the extra value comes from. So the more work, the more value.

            • Kind of makes inefficiency good. Yeah, that’s why the government is so successful at taking, it’s inefficient.

      • Jen:

        It is SO disingenuous to complain about high unemployment and then SEPARATELY complain about “the welfare rolls.”

        I would ask the opposite question: the stock market has DOUBLED under Obama, and Fortune 500 corporations recorded ALL-TIME record profits, easily blowing away the previous record of boom year 2006. Yet, rolling in dough like never before, these same companies are not doing the patriotic thing of finding jobs that need to be done.

        Are these corporations deliberately attempting to crush the US welfare system?

  73. Just Say NO to Rmoney — VOTE for ANYONE but Mormon Mitt!

    The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)!

    Now another Mormon wants to do the same to our entire Nation!
    And his 5 Mormon Sons are waiting in line to finish US off!

    *Vote FOR Gary Johnson* — Do NOT vote for Mormon Mitt (or Barack Hussein) the lesser of two evils!

      • Amazing that the people have been bamboozled into thinking that either Barack Hussein or Mormon Mitt are a solution — when both are AGAINST these principles upon which our Nation was built!

        PRINCIPLES we must stand by!

        “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

        “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

        “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

        “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

        “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

        “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
        —————————————————————————–

        Voting for either anti-American — Barack the Kenyan or Mitt the Mexican Mormon — would only be legitimizing the further government corruption that seems to have no end!

        VOTE for Garry Johnson — who stands for these principles, and is on nearly all 50 States ballots (unlike my 1st choice, Ron Paul, who is NOT on ANY States ballots) or face the dire consequences of failing to do so — TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA!

        VOTE GARY JOHNSON — the only REAL AMERICAN LEFT on the BALLOT!

    • Still out there Surfisher? Now that Ron Paul is out of the running, you’re behind Gary Johnson? Hmm, is that what you’d call flip-flopping? 🙂

      You have unfortunately, for you, just discredited yourself by spreading false information about Mitt Romney, his church, and his family. If people want to know about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they should visit, mormon.org to decide for themselves whether Mormons follow and believe in Jesus Christ.

      • Unless you VOTE for Gary Johnson — we won’t have an Election, but puppet Selection!

        You want a prediction — here is an APODICTIC one:

        The American People LOOSE, regardless which one of these two puppets (Barack Hussein or Mormon Mitt) gets “elected”!

        (PLEASE, SPREAD THIS — THERE IS TIME LEFT TO INFLUENCE THE UNDECIDED!)

          • 4:

            I think it was H.L. Menken who said, “nobody ever lost a nickel underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

            But I really hope that Americans see through Willard.

            • You are asking way too much on that note. I myself think the food stamps and free cell phones are going to win it.

      • Just Say NO to Rmoney — VOTE for ANYONE but Mormon Mitt!

        Keep Mitt’s mittens off of the White House — or face An American Tragedy!

        The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)!

        Now another Mormon wants to do the same to our entire Nation!
        And his 5 Mormon Sons are waiting in line to finish US off!

        *Vote FOR Gary Johnson* — Do NOT vote for Mormon Mitt (or Barack Hussein) the lesser of two evils!

      • 4:

        It is not a flip-flop to go from Ron Paul to Gary Johnson. Ron Paul was the previous candidate of the Libertarian Party for president. This year, he stupidly joined the GOP debates, as if he GOP establishment would listen to a Libertarian. But he did get a forum, no matter how minimized.

        One thing he showed is that the GOP is so frightened of the grass roots that it is willing to make fools of themselves–in public.

        Personally, I think the Tea Party folks ought to just give up on the GOP elite and join the Libertarian Party. Let the GOP fall, the way the Whigs did.

        And, finally, while Ron Paul said Romney made a fool of himself in the last debate, he said he thought Gary Johnson was the best candidate running–just short of an endorsement.

  74. What am I not buying? Any of it.

    But frankly, the facts are as I see it: you haven’t convinced me in the past 4-5 months, I’ve already voted, and there truly is nothing you can say that will change those facts.

    I respect your right to vote your conscience, I don’t agree with your POV, but it is your right as an American citizen to vote for the candidate you believe will do the most good. It is also mine, and I have exercised it freely.

    May you have a safe trip to the polls on Nov. 6th. 🙂

  75. Here it is,

    “Later, we discussed the extreme underhanded tricks the Romney and GOP establishment did to hand the nomination over to Willard, and even at the convention, “passing’ rules to shut up the grass routes.

    I happen to think that Romney is an example of the worst things you could say about our country, but even if I didn’t think he has no character and no unchanging ideals, the crap he pulled on the way to the nomination would be enough to disqualify him.

    And now that he is talking about increasing the safety net for poor people, working for world peace, and singing Kumbaya, My Lord, he is still being championed by people who are oblivious to his bragging about his liberal agenda in Massachusetts–and how he “reached across the aisle” to sign anything they wanted to come up with. Sheep to the slaughter.

    And that’s aside from Willard’s record as a big spender and even BIGGER borrower–getting the largest ever bailout of the Olympics, and then getting a big federal bailout of Massachusetts.”

    • Only because there is something in it for them. Question you should ask yourself is . what’s in it for me. Johnson started his Big J with an army of one. He didn’t hire 999 more just to give them a job, he did it for himself. As for the 999, what was in it for them was a pay check.

  76. VOTE GARY JOHNSON — or see our Nation END 2012!

    Just Say NO to Rmoney — VOTE for ANYONE but Mormon Mitt!

    Keep Mitt’s mittens off of the White House — or face An American Tragedy!

    The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)!

    Now another Mormon wants to do the same to our entire Nation!
    And his 5 Mormon Sons are waiting in line of a Rmoney Dynasty to finish US off!

    *Vote FOR Gary Johnson* — Do NOT vote for Mormon Mitt (or Barack Hussein) the lesser of two evils!

    • @Surfisher, you said again, “The Mormons stripped the richest man in the world, Howard Hughes, not only of his life, but his entire fortune (that is how the Mormons got financial power to jump start their cult)!

      Now another Mormon wants to do the same to our entire Nation!
      And his 5 Mormon Sons are waiting in line of a Rmoney Dynasty to finish US off!”

      Still passing on that fairy tale? This is why I question everything you libertarians put out there. Sorry, Surfisher, but heaven help us if this is an example of libertarian critical thinking and research.

    • You need to quit posting this. The more you post it the more people will be annoyed by you and ignore whatever you just said.

  77. every one can just shut up. and stand by to wait who becomes president, are only 18 & up supposse to vote, act like it. its anyones personal decision. i am pro- obama. but anyone can choose who ever. good luck to both canidates. and lets hope for a better future for the country. ok so little miss/mr surfisher. Be quiet. dont force. grow up. & nice to know you googled all these little facts. waste of your life if you ask me.

Comments are closed.