Hello:

Vote as many times as you wish.. You vote will be made public.

excon

PS> (edited) What I MEANT was that you may vote for as many SELECTIONS as you wish. You can't vote multiple times... That would be like dead people voting...

Option 5... too close to call


The contest between them, regardless, is far closer than those prognostications would suggest. Registered voters in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, divide by 49-44 percent between Obama and Romney, with the race a virtual tie, 49-47 percent, among those most likely to vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-leads-expectations-race-itself-stays-close-040325146--abc-news-politics.html

You don't have the picture Tom

OK show me the picture? All the polls show within the margin of error ;and the elections are still 6 weeks away . Their 1st of 3 head to head debates is this week ;and the President's foreign policies ;as well as his poor economic performance are now in play. His Clinton bounce from the convention... (paraphrase... "it's ok to vote for Obama because no one could've done better (except me )" ) is just about spent .

ok show me the picture? All the polls show within the margin of error ;and the elections are still 6 weeks away . Their 1st of 3 head to head debates is this weekHello again, tom:

Yes, there's a margin there.. But, every single poll shows Romney LOSING. What he has to do, is convince SOME of the NOW decided voters to SWITCH their votes. That ain't going to be easy. I believe he only has ONE debate to get it done. People are already voting. He can't just do OK.. He has to annihilate the president.. Maybe he can. We'll see.

excon

People are already voting... which is another crazy practice we should cease. Election day is constitutionally mandated . It should be enforced except in the case of legitimate absentee balloting . Nov. 6, roughly a third of voters will have already cast their ballots. What good is an October surprise if a third of the ballots have already been cast ? Events can and do transpire up until election day... some of them potentially game changing .

.....which is another crazy practice we should cease. Election day is constitutionally mandated . Hello again, tom:

As long as we keep the antiquated way we vote, we NEED to do early voting, because we'll be overwhelmed at the polling places... There IS a way we can avoid all that state stuff.. In fact, allowing the states to do it calls for mischief.

We DO seem to be able to handle highly secure transactions online from the privacy of our homes... Seems to me, if we trust online banking, we could trust online voting...

excon

We DO seem to be able to handle highly secure transactions online from the privacy of our homes... Seems to me, if we trust online banking, we could trust online voting...

excon

Except when the Chinese hack into (http://freebeacon.com/white-house-hack-attack/) the network responsible for the nuclear football everything's fine. By the way, the polls are tightening with independents moving toward Romney.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)

Nate is the man I trust.

Hello again, tom:

As long as we keep the antiquated way we vote, we NEED to do early voting, because we'll be overwhelmed at the polling places... There IS a way we can avoid all that state stuff.. In fact, allowing the states to do it calls for mischief.

We DO seem to be able to handle highly secure transactions online from the privacy of our homes... Seems to me, if we trust online banking, we could trust online voting...

excon

A revolutionary idea Ex on a par with voting machines but why can't you provide more polling places? Surely it isn't difficult to divdide the population by the number of people who can reasonably vote in any polling place and provide enough places. If you were going to vote on line you would definitely have to have voter ID. Online voting might mean more people vote, perish the thought, actually finding the will of the people

Obama is nothing but a joke! People need to open there eyes this f-in country needs to be run like a business were 16 trillion dollars in debt and keep borrowing money that we don't even have, It is so easy to get food stamps now its crazy I swear every time I go to the store the person in front of me has an EBT card like come on get of your lazy a$$ and get a f-in job ohh wait Obama has not created nothing but minimum wage jobs that can't support everyone! AND OHH WE Didn't BUILD SHEIT!

Wonderful rave there. I can agree with part of it the country needs to be run like a business. If you did that you would declare bankruptcy. The question is who creates the jobs, government or business. Business! Those lousey money grubbing business men who sold the country up the creek to China. You want to blame Obama, because you need someone to blame, but seriously he inherited the problem and there is a whole world out there suffering because of those money grubbing businessmen like Romney who love asset stripping and creating unemployment while ripping off people with worthless securities.

There is a way to bring back the jobs, raise tariff barriers and insist on local content, you can do part of this yourself, don't buy foreign made, stay out of Walmart.

Maybe Obama isn't able to do it, but you can bet big tax cuts to business won't do it either, because it isn't about tax, it's about confidence. Tax only works when there is something to tax. You need to send all those illegals home so there are more jobs available even if they are low paid, get the people off the dole queues. Just because you have money doesn't mean others do. 14 million without jobs and you recon they are all lazy. Get a life!

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)

Nate is the man I trust.

Rasmussen... Silver used to defend Scott Rasmussen until his bosses at the NY Slimes gave him his marching orders . But just as lib media is critical of Rasmussen ;conservatives are equally critical of polling organizations the libs like.
You wonder why I generally ignore the polls ? The only time you can trust them is the last week when their reputation for getting it accurate is in play ;then after elections ,they quibble over a couple percentage points one way or the other .

The only time you think they are accurate is when they favour Romney

Heh, people actually believe Obama is a communist, such is the ignorance of americans about politics.

I just voted for all the options in the poll.

the only time you think they are accurate is when they favour Romney

Then you haven't been paying attention. I am generally critical of ALL polls .Polls get skewed to favor a preconceived result. They are easily manipulated with the questions asked and the methodology used. When the results matter ,they clean up their act to a degree.

If I had access to internal polling I'd have a better idea of how the race is going .

A revolutionary idea Ex on a par with voting machines but why can't you provide more polling places? surely it isn't difficult to divdide the population by the number of people who can reasonably vote in any polling place and provide enough places. If you were going to vote on line you would definately have to have voter ID. online voting might mean more people vote, perish the thought, actually finding the will of the people

I have no problem with on-line voting... ironically the issue of voter id becomes critical in that case... going to the polls ? Not so much I guess.

Polls get skewed to favor a preconceived result. They are easily manipulated with the questions askedHello tom:

I suppose the polls CAN be stacked... But, speaking as a businessman, it's suicide to DO that. I thought right wingers UNDERSTOOD business... No, huh?

Look. If I were in the polling business, the only thing I have to SELL is an ACCURATE poll. If my polls are flawed, nobody would buy them. Elliot would understand what I'm saying..

excon

Well thank goodness we have Biden on the job, admitting that the working class has been "buried the last four years."

Well thank goodness we have Biden on the job, admitting that the working class has been "buried the last four years."I noticed on other sites how this is the conservative talking point of the day. Well done!
Biden is telling the truth of course. What's the reason for the outrage this time?

I noticed on other sites how this is the conservative talking point of the day. Well done!
Biden is telling the truth of course. What's the reason for the outrage this time?

Outrage? What outrage? We're proud of Biden for telling the truth, 4 years of Obama and the middle class IS buried. Tell it like it is Joe!

P.S. Very amusing how the guy who fell for and jumped on the discredited Romney airplane window story is mocking others for taking off with an actual Biden gaffe. Well done!

So you're saying the Obama administration enacted all the plans they wanted to enact?

Well thank goodness we have Biden on the job, admitting that the working class has been "buried the last four years."Hello again, Steve:

Couple things...

First off, you BLAST the administration for covering up stuff. Now, you're blasting them for admitting stuff. What's with that? But, it's not SURPRISING stuff. It's not stuff we DIDN'T know.. It's not that he revealed a SECRET. He told us stuff we already KNOW. In fact, I have a feeling that your OWN candidates are saying the same thing...

Next. It appears that you can't remember past 4 years ago... I don't know WHY. But, that's why I'M here. Let me remind you again... George W. Bush BROKE the economy SO badly, that NOBODY, could have fixed it in 4 years - NOBODY. You guys think this is just one of those run of the mill downturns that ANY president worth his salt, could have gotten us out of in very short order...

But, it wasn't.. It was the WORST downturn since the Great Depression... It does NOT surprise me that the middle class are STILL buried. The only people who are surprised about it, are people who have NO understanding of how the economy works.

excon

So you're saying the Obama administration enacted all the plans they wanted to enact?

Thank goodness no, the middle class would be even worse off - but he had 2 years to pass anything he wanted.

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things...

First off, you BLAST the administration for covering up stuff. Now, you're blasting them for admitting stuff. What's with that?? But, it's not SURPRISING stuff. It's not stuff we DIDN'T know.. It's not that he revealed a SECRET. He told us stuff we already KNOW. In fact, I have a feeling that your OWN candidates are saying the same thing...

Next. It appears that you can't remember past 4 years ago... I dunno WHY. But, that's why I'M here. Lemme remind you again... George W. Bush BROKE the economy SO badly, that NOBODY, could have fixed it in 4 years - NOBODY. You guys think this is just one of those run of the mill downturns that ANY president worth his salt, could have gotten us out of in very short order...

But, it wasn't.. It was the WORST downturn since the Great Depression... It does NOT surprise me that the middle class are STILL buried. The only people who are surprised about it, are people who have NO understanding of how the economy works.

excon

I blast the administration for coverups, lies and blatant deception, should I praise them instead?

Thank goodness no, the middle class would be even worse off - but he had 2 years to pass anything he wanted.
Two years was enough to fix all that? See excon's post.

Hello tom:

I suppose the polls CAN be stacked... But, speaking as a businessman, it's suicide to DO that. I thought right wingers UNDERSTOOD business... No, huh?

Look. If I were in the polling business, the only thing I have to SELL is an ACCURATE poll. If my polls are flawed, nobody would buy them. Elliot would understand what I'm saying..

excon

Yes indeed... that is why the final poll is the important one .Their credibility is in the final results.
But when there is an agenda behind the poll ,then that IS what the pollster is being paid to provide. That is why I mentioned the internal polling . The candidates need their own information ;not what these published polls provide. If they could believe the external polls then they would not need their own independent polling .

Man, Romney KILLED last night. Mittens made mincemeat of the messiah. I don't agree with Bill Maher much but he was right on this...


Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney -- Bill Maher

Obama got schooled and it showed.

Mitt was aggressive, but he didn't get specific about anything, and I can't wait for the sound bites to be aired. Obama let him lie as much as he wanted to!

Hello again,

I think he was stoned... Will it change the outcome?? I don't know.. Hispanics still hate Romney. Women too.

excon

PS> Screw the election.. I'm going skiing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=EEu42L0ufBY)

Awesome video !
Bill Mahrer said Obama forgot TOTUS . Michael Moore said that's what you get when you have John Kerry as your debate coach.

The President should come to these boards to learn his talking points .Where was 'Caymans ' or "47%" or "Bane" ? Very strange performance. Does he think it's beneath him to have to be in a debate ? Has surrounding himself for 4 years with an echo chamber affected him ? Ex is right... maybe he was doing some 'choom' before the debate .He even flubbed his early mention of his anniversary. He even flubbed the 2 minute prepared final statement . It was shocking ! How arrogant is it that he thinks he doesn't need to bring his A game to a presidential debate ?

Yeah we libs are crying in our soup at the end of ROUND1. Your guy brought his red meat, we didn't. So we don't bury Romney today, but we will.

Here's a thought... (Obama) "I love Big Bird .... I won't defund him " .

There was method in President Obama's madness. It gave Romney the opportunity to wear a smarmy smile and lie through his teeth. President Obama couldn't even look him in the face or would have broken out in hysterical laughter. Their next debate will bear watching.

You mean the President was doing a 'rope-a-dope' as he was getting pummeled against the ropes for 90 minutes ? Great call ! He should sue Axelrod for malpractice !

Remember Tom one swallow does not a summer make

You mean the President was doing a 'rope-a-dope' as he was getting pummeled against the ropes for 90 minutes ? Great call ! He should sue Axelrod for malpractice !

Another great Maher tweet...

Mitt was aggressive, but he didn't get specific about anything, and I can't wait for the sound bites to be aired. Obama let him lie as much as he wanted to!

Methinks you're in denial.

remember Tom one swallow does not a summer makeHello again, clete:

But, if he doesn't improve his debating skills, Romney is going to eat his lunch next time too.

Look.. I'm NOT a good debater. You'd think I WOULD be because I kick right wing butt here every day... Plus, of course, I'm right.. But, I need TIME for formulate my thoughts. If I had to respond VERBALLY to these guys, I'd say stuff that wouldn't win a debate. Sometimes, even TIME doesn't muffle me.

Once you look at the UNDERLYING policy, right wingers want to take the country BACK to 1895. Do you think the debate was a game changer?

excon

Another great Maher tweet...Suddenly Maher is a good source for you. Interesting. I guess the source only matters when it says the message you agree with.

Why should I discredit a source when they're right? We have you for that.

Why should I discredit a source when they're right? Like you using the moniker "Compost" and "Slimes".

No that would be me doing that. But even they can't make excuses for the poor performance of the President .

Will this be a game changer ? I think for the 1st time a significant audience got to see Romney without the narrative the Slimes et al have been trying to spin about him. He looked like he belonged on the same stage as the President of the United States. That is one image that the Obots didn't want .

That is one image that the Obots didn't want .Hello again, tom:

Obama looked stoned, Romney looked like he was tweaking..

excon

Like you using the moniker "Compost" and "Slimes".

I never use "compost" except in my garden. This is why I'm here, to help you keep up.

I never use "compost" except in my garden. This is why I'm here, to help you keep up.Thanks Steve!

More tweets on the mile high massacre.

Congratulations on your massacre.

41552

Well, it's all their fault Obama lost...

Yes it's true that they get about 90% funding from underwriting from those evil corporation and billionaire's foundations. All the more reason to eliminate public funding .They don't need it.

This is fun watching the left spin this today. The DNC patched some clips to show how much of a mean ol' bully Romney was last night...

qTFJTm4t5Mw

I love that last shot of Obama looking like a whipped puppy. Yeah that's going to make him look better.

P.S. Romney used 47 percent of the time available. O actually had more time, he just did much less with it.

Looks like your guy is a shoe in.

Looks like your guy is a shoe in.

He's certainly looking better today. The Goracle has an explanation for O's terrible debate, it was the altitude.

mtkw8stAlrM

That's no excuse of course.

Thom Hartmann was trying to spin it that Romney's "attack" was "racist".

Thom Hartmann was trying to spin it that Romney's "attack" was "racist".

Did he say "basketball" or "Chicago" or "golf" or something?

Well at last you have someone to blame for the mess you are in BIG BIRD

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/body-language-expert-romney-uncomfortable-firing-big-bird/story?id=17396577

Did he say "basketball" or "Chicago" or "golf" or something?

Eqaually inane.. He called his sons 'boys'.

Can't believe you guys are so excited by LIES!! What Romney said last night isn't what he has been saying all year. Come on guys who believes he will deliver 20% tax cuts across the board and balance the budget off Big Bird?

Talk about fuzzy math.

Obamas were lies and were proven to be... Obama got his butt mopped all over the floor and handed back to him... Barry looked like the little punk on the playground that liked to pick on everyone and got caught. He was stammering and stuttering like a fool.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." ~ Author Unknown

Barrack really couldn't have avoided the debate... though its obvious he really wished he could have... and looked like he was considering bolting out of the room and making a run for Air Force One the entire night.. He likes to flap his gums and beat his chest... when nobodies around to call him out on it... He's clearly not the master debater his faithful followers claimed he was. If he's not in front of a TelePrompter reading a speech someone else wrote for him... then he's out of his element.

Hello smoothy:

It's true, he's not a good debater... He's a masterdebater...

excon

Every incumbent president but Clinton has lost the first debate since 1976. Some have gone on to win, some have lost. And while your guy won big as you say, his lies and flop flops are all over the place.

I get you guys are so desperate for even the falsest of hopes after a long hot summer, but celebrate and get back to work, because this may be a great day for you, but tomorrow may not be.

Enjoy yourselves, while you can.

Hello smoothy:

It's true, he's not a good debater... He's a masterdebater...

excon

I think you need to take out the "de" in the middle of that word then you got it right.

Cracking down on Sesame Street, and letting Wall Street run amok is a sure solution to our problems. You go Mitt!

President Obama knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

A quote from the Denver Post that was negative to Obama -- "Like a bull to a matador, Romney time and again turned toward Obama to deliver attacks on the president's job performance...."

Who almost always comes out ahead, the matador or the bull?

There is no doubt there is a lot of bull here

Every incumbent president but Clinton has lost the first debate since 1976
Yes but usually the incumbent shows up .

Cracking down on Sesame Street, and letting Wall Street run amok is a sure solution to our problems. You go Mitt!

You see... that would've been a pretty good come back line. Why didn't the President make the connection until yesterday on the campaign trail in front of the echo chamber ?
The question you should ask is which candidate does Wall Street support ? Why it would be Obama of course . Why ? Because despite his populist rhetoric pitting them against the rest of the world ,he has let the' friends of Angelo' go about their business .In fact ;he lets them write the financial regs ;he populates his treasury dept with their gumbas .
So who would be a better friend of 'Main Street ? The President who covertly is in Wall Street's back pocket ? Or Romney ;a proven job creator for the middle income worker ?

So who would be a better friend of 'Main Street ? The President who covertly is in Wall Street's back pocket ?
Are you implying that any president/senator/congressman is not in Wall Street's back pocket? I think that would be a very wrong assumption.

I don't make any broad generalizations on the issue. I judge it based on performance. Where are the indictments for the friends of Angelo ?

Where are the indictments for the friends of Angelo ?Who is that?

you see .....that would've been a pretty good come back line. Why didn't the President make the connection until yesterday on the campaign trail in front of the echo chamber ?
The question you should ask is which candidate does Wall Street support ? Why it would be Obama of course . Why ? Because despite his populist rhetoric pitting them against the rest of the world ,he has let the' friends of Angelo' go about their business .In fact ;he lets them write the financial regs ;he populates his treasury dept with their gumbas .
So who would be a better friend of 'Main Street ? The President who covertly is in Wall Street's back pocket ? Or Romney ;a proven job creator for the middle income worker ?

Romney is a proven money extractor for himself, and his job creation record shows that helping the middle class is NOT is priority, or his goal. His plan as a candidate that he shrouds in mystery clearly indicates he THINKS if the rich guys had even more money, the middle class would proper from pee on your head economics, while paying for his prosperity.

How can a supply side capitalist, ignore semand as part of the equation? Even Henry Ford recognized the need to have his workers afford the products they built. He helped create demand and proper to this day. He and his workers. Romney creates nothing for workers,just extracts profit through financial tricks for HIS clients and investors.

Obama has 5 million jobs created in less than 4 years after the worse mess in a century, and despite the republicans doing nothing but hollering gloom and doom. Indeed had they worked as much as they holler our progress would have been greater.

Of course you can't admit that, because unless you can blame Obama for being a failure, you would have to admit your own failures to act in the country's behalf. That's a very sad state of affairs you guys have going as you choose political power over the interest of the people you serve, and kiss the boots of Grover, and Karl.

Romney creates nothing for workers,just extracts profit through financial tricks for HIS clients and investors.
Tell that to the thousands of workers who are employed in companies he helped jump start.


Obama has 5 million jobs created in less than 4 years What a sham ! The recovery under his watch has been weak at best and is underperforming all historic comparisons .

after the worse mess in a century, .Really ? Do you forget 1929 ?
The fact is that historically a sharp recession is followed by a strong recovery. I contend that is what we would've had if the President hadn't tried his failed "trickle down government " interventions . Talk about being "peed on " ! The Obots do it with a fire hose.

I don't make any broad generalizations on the issue. I judge it based on performance. Where are the indictments for the friends of Angelo ?

Where is the indictment for Jon Corzine? He just "simply don't know" where that missing $1.2 billion went.

Where is the indictment for Jon Corzine? He just "simply don't know" where that missing $1.2 billion went.Hello again, Steve:

Let me see. Corzine = Democrat. Corzine = Bad. Obama = Democrat. Ergo, Obama = Bad.

That IS how the right wing brain works, no?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Lemme see. Corzine = Democrat. Corzine = Bad. Obama = Democrat. Ergo, Obama = Bad.

That IS how the right wing brain works, no?

excon

No, corruption = bad. You really think $1.2 billion dollars of investor money just went missing?

No, corruption = bad. You really think $1.2 billion dollars of investor money just went missing?Hello again, Steve:

Do you really think it's Obama's fault? Maybe it's Bigbird's fault.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Do you really think it's Obama's fault? Maybe it's Bigbird's fault.

excon

Pointing out where I blamed Obama for losing that $1.2 billion would be a good start.

Pointing out where I blamed Obama for losing that $1.2 billion would be a good start.Hello again, Steve:

Well, there were a few posts I didn't read.. Isn't this about Obama? Why are you talking about Corzine? Here, have a hit of this.. Then we'll be on the same page..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, there were a few posts I didn't read.. Isn't this about Obama? Why are you talking about Corzine? Here, have a hit of this.. Then we'll be on the same page..

excon

Don't tempt me.

Obama has 5 million jobs created in less than 4 years


What a sham ! The recovery under his watch has been weak at best and is underperforming all historic comparisons .

A big(pathetic) 114,000 jobs added this month . That added to the fact that over 1.1 million people left the labor force this year has brought the magic unemployment number down below that 8% threshold . Why is that number significant ? Because Presidents who preside over an economy that is riding an 8% unemployment rate don't get re-elected .
So Obama told the Labor Dept to sharpen their # 2 Ticonderogas and make the numbers favorable for his chances(from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent).

James Pethokoukis nails it :


Only in an era of depressingly diminished expectations could the September jobs report be called a good one. It really isn’t. Not at all...
Yes, the U-3 unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since January 2009. But that’s only due to a flood of 582,000 part-time jobs...

Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by just 1.8 percent. When you take inflation into account, wages are flat to down...

The broader U-6 rate — which takes into account part-time workers who want full-time work and lots of discouraged workers who’ve given up looking — stayed unchanged at 14.7%. That’s a better gauge of the true unemployment rate and state of the American labor market.

The shrunken workforce remains shrunken. If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. If the participation rate had just stayed steady since the start of the year, the unemployment rate would be 8.4% vs. 8.3%...

The 114,000 jobs created would have been a good number … but for 1962, not 2012. The U.S. economy needs 2-3 times that number every month to close the jobs gap (which is the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to create in order to return to pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month.)...

We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year.

The sickly, stagnant September jobs report | AEIdeas (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sickly-stagnant-september-jobs-report/)

I knew as soon as I heard the guy announce it that something was screwy. CNBC and CNN both have said something isn't right about this jobs report.

Also added to the fact that the President strong armed the Defense contractors to delay pink slips until after the election .

Hello again,

Boy, since Romny's win, I thought the desperation was gone.. No, huh? First the polls are rigged and now the jobs report...

You guys are silly.

excon

Dude, it's math. His numbers don't add up.

Dude, it's math. His numbers don't add up.But that's the same issue with Romney's plan - surely you need to take Romney to task for that too, right?

But that's the exact same issue with Romney's plan - surely you need to take Romney to task for that too, right?

Romney isn't president, he isn't the one in charge of bogus official statistics. Try and keep up.

And if you mean the bogus $5 trillion tax cut that team Obama keeps lying about his campaign spokeschick admitted it was bogus to CNN.

Q0g8COdYcU0


BURNETT: Let me play this one and then get your reaction.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.

BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Because here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come and said that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that. because he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions. So his tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.

CUTTER: So you’re disputing the size of the tax cut? Or are you disputing also how he’s going to pay for it?

BURNETT: We’re disputing the size.

CUTTER: Erin, he has campaigned on lowering tax rates by 20% for everybody, including those in the top 1%. That was one of the main selling points in the Republican primary.

BURNETT: So you’re saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?

CUTTER: It’s a $5 trillion tab.

BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.

CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.

Good job Erin Burnett. See how that works when the media does their job? A little bit of the truth gets out.

Romney isn't presidentSo the presidential hopeful who wants to get elected can say what he wants without being fact-checked? I'll never understand fanatic ideology.

So the presidential hopeful who wants to get elected can say what he wants without being fact-checked? I'll never understand fanatic ideology.

I just gave you your fact check above. Try and keep up.

I just gave you your fact check above. Try and keep up.
It said nothing about Romney's numbers not adding up.
How come you keep saying "try to keep up"? What's that supposed to mean when consistently dodge questions?

Hello again,

Let me do some math here... You know basic stuff. Addition, subtraction.. Maybe a little multiplication...

Let's say you're an average worker with an average mortgage.. For simplicity sake, let's say you make about $50k. Your mortgage is $150k. Your present tax rate is 25%. Your monthly payment is $1,000. Your mortgage deduction brings your taxable income down to $38k, and your tax due would be $9,500. If you rate was dropped 20%, and you no longer have a mortgage deduction, your taxable income is still $50k, and your tax would $10,000.

That's $500 MORE you'd have to pay under Romney's plan. It looks like a tax INCREASE to me for the middle class.. If he closes more loopholes, the middle class will pay even MORE.

But, it's just numbers... How important are they?

excon

I don't recall Romney saying he'd target the mortgage deduction. That is more Dem spin without evidence.

Me ? I would grandfather the deduction out ;and most others in favor of lower flatter rates . But I isn't Romney .

It said nothing about Romney's numbers not adding up.
How come you keep saying "try to keep up"? What's that supposed to mean when consistently dodge questions?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/whos-winning-705934-10.html#post3290521

Team Obama says his numbers don't add up. Until today when his spokeschick admitted the charge was bogus. Got it now?

More (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2509960#.UG8pfq7pyVq) on the jobs report...


During the robust Reagan jobs recovery in the 1980s, liberals regularly dismissed good news by attributing it to the creation of “McJobs.” So it’s interesting to see liberals celebrating the September jobs report, in which the headline unemployment figure fell to 7.8 percent, largely because of an increase in Americans settling for low paying part-time jobs.

Once a month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports two main sets of employment numbers. Under one measure, based on a survey of employers, the economy added 114,000 jobs in September. Under another measure, based on a smaller survey of households, the economy added 873,000. But a more detailed look at these numbers shows that 572,000 — or about 67 percent — of the reported job gains that contributed to the reduction in the unemployment rate came from workers who had to settle for part time work. BLS explains that, “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” This is why a broader measure of unemployment, which takes into account those who were forced to accept inferior jobs, remained flat at 14.7 percent.

This report is part of a broader trend that we’ve seen over the past few years, in which job gains have been concentrated in lower-wage positions. And this isn’t just spin from the Romney campaign. Over the summer, the liberal National Employment Law Project released a report that was highlighted in the Atlantic, which focused on this trend. The report found that:


– Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.

– Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.

This is illustrated by the NELP chart above. Though Obama has touted modest job gains during the recovery as evidence things are getting better, looking merely at the headline jobs and unemployment number obscures the fact that the middle class has still struggled to find quality jobs, while more Americans are settling for lower-paying work.


Now wonder median income fell by $4000, everyone has a McJob now...

Team Obama says his numbers don't add up. Until today when his spokeschick admitted the charge was bogus. Got it now?
What are the tax deductions, who are they for, what are the deductions and which loopholes will be closed?

What are the tax deductions, who are they for, what are the deductions and which loopholes will be closed?

What are Obama's specifics for a 2nd term?

I don't think the specific deductions are the big point. The additional revenues from the economic growth will negate any concern about any losses from the rate reductions .

That's a foreign concept tom, increased growth leading to more revenue for everyone including the government.

Yeah I know . Even though there is a proven track record from JFK ,Reagan ,and GW Bush ,that supply side cuts stimulate the economy ,they don't believe the evidence.
Any deficit increases from those eras can be directly linked to uncontrolled spending ;not the tax cuts.

The latest debate theory, Romney cheated (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140435/-Did-Mitt-use-crib-notes-for-the-debate).

hTE1Y3bvqwM



There is a scandal brewing that suggests that Mitt Romney used crib notes for the debate. This is of course, C-H-E-A-T-I-N-G! and would be awful if true.

I believe the candidates are only supposed to have a blank piece of paper (pad) and a pen at the podium, provided by the CPD. No notes, this isn't "open book."

In a move that might remind many of Joe Niekro 's flying emery board Romney seems to have gotten caught taking notes from his pocket and later unfolding it on the podium.

Watch Romney's right hand, very early in the video starting at 0:00:09

Mitt takes something out of his pocket and tosses it on the podium. It seems as if he maybe using his body to try and screen the movement. It's very fast, the whole thing is over by 0:00:12

"Hankygate (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-cheat-sheet-was-a-handkerchief-campaign)."

Yeah I know . Even though there is a proven track record from JFK ,Reagan ,and GW Bush ,that supply side cuts stimulate the economy ,they don't believe the evidence.
Any deficit increases from those eras can be directly linked to uncontrolled spending ;not the tax cuts.

I would think that ex, the business owner, would understand that.

Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah I know . Even though there is a proven track record from JFK ,Reagan ,and GW Bush ,that supply side cuts stimulate the economy ,they don't believe the evidence.
Any deficit increases from those eras can be directly linked to uncontrolled spending ;not the tax cuts.

Can you specifically define that uncontrolled spending for us please? You may exclude tax cuts for corporations if that helps you, or funding for all the bubbles and crashes that they went through, and the business cycle as well. So what's left? Military? Wars? Booze/women? What are those uncontrolled spending by JFK. Reagan, and Bush?

What are Obama's specifics for a 2nd term?
Deflect, deflect, deflect... NEVER directly answer a question.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ... NEVER directly answer a question.

Nope, just waiting for you to answer anything.

What are Obama's specifics for a 2nd term?

Issues - An economy built to last -- Barack Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav)

Where are Romney's specifics?

This one I believe... Obama sucked because he wasn't allowed to use TOTUS. (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/05/Obama-Supporters-President-Should-Have-Teleprompter-At-Debates)

Hello again, Steve:

Obama sucked because he's a lousy debater. But, he's a GOOD campaigner and Romney isn't.. That's why he's going to WIN.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Obama sucked because he's a lousy debater. But, he's a GOOD campaigner and Romney isn't.. That's why he's gonna WIN.

excon

That, and his base is clueless.

That, and his base is clueless.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know... We don't have congressmen who think slavery was a blessing for black people (http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/10/06/arkansas-republican-slavery-was-a-blessing-for-black-people/).. And, we don't have congressmen who think the Big Bang and evolution are 'Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell' (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolution-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php).

But YOU do.

excon

That, and his base is clueless.
Yup, that is indeed how it seems the right perceives anyone who does not share their ideology.

That, and his base is clueless.


Is that a straw argument, or a brain fart?

Man I hope romney wins obamas a comunist and a lier and doesn't eserve another term

man i hope romney wins obamas a comunist and a lier and doesnt eserve another term
Can you define communism?

man i hope romney wins obamas a comunist and a lier and doesnt eserve another term

What does a spelling challenged 14 year old know about communism?? Or his own government for that matter?

What does a spelling challenged 14 year old know about communism??? Or his own government for that matter?

Well Tal he knows what he has been taught, something about a system that is the only way and a government that is the only way and that despite his personal challenges he is better than anyoneelse. Lots of people confuse socialism with communism, the difference is really in the degree of control over the individual. You can have state owned enterprise without controlling the individual. I think the Chinese have learned this lesson well even if it took forty years

Yup, that is indeed how it seems the right perceives anyone who does not share their ideology.

For you and Tal, it refers to Obots who didn't think it was fair that Obama couldn't use TOTUS at the debate.

For you and Tal, it refers to Obots who didn't think it was fair that Obama couldn't use TOTUS at the debate.Nope, our comments refers to you saying Obama's "base is clueless". Try to keep up. :D

Nope, our comments refers to you saying Obama's "base is clueless". Try to keep up. :D

Sorry, but unlike you I know what I'm referring to when I say it. Try and keep up.

Sorry, but unlike you I know what I'm referring to when I say it. Try and keep up.

I know you think that, that's why we posted what we did.

I know you think that, that's why we posted what we did.

Ah, so you know why everyone does everything but I don't know why I posted my own words? You don't know the difference between screaming and wearing a t-shirt.

Ah, so you know why everyone does everything but I don't know why I posted my own words?

Well here are your words:


Obama sucked because he's a lousy debater. But, he's a GOOD campaigner and Romney isn't.. That's why he's gonna WIN.



That, and his base is clueless.

That's why I said:

Yup, that is indeed how it seems the right perceives anyone who does not share their ideology.

Dude, I'm not excon and you're still ignoring the reason I gave for saying his base was clueless. I told you once (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/whos-winning-705934-13.html#post3292431) so this time pay attention. My remark refers to this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/whos-winning-705934-12.html#post3291808):


This one I believe... Obama sucked because he wasn't allowed to use TOTUS (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/05/Obama-Supporters-President-Should-Have-Teleprompter-At-Debates).

Anyone with half a brain knows use of a teleprompter is against the rules of a debate and use of a hanky isn't for cheating (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/whos-winning-705934-11.html#post3290623), it's for wiping.

I rest my case.

Romney was right...


Abound Solar under investigation by Weld County district attorney; received $68 million stimulus (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/abound-solar-under-investigation-by-weld-county-district-attorney-received-68-million-stimulus)

LONGMONT, Colo. - A bankrupt Longmont-based company that received $68 million in stimulus money is under investigation by the Weld County district attorney's office.

7NEWS has confirmed Abound Solar is under investigation.

Abound made solar panels which it sold across the country, Europe and India.The Department of Energy approved nearly $370 million in federal stimulus money for Abound. The company received $68 million before payments were stopped in 2011.

Sources tell 7NEWS that the company's finances are under scrutiny.

7NEWS obtained internal documents from 2012 that show orders for tens of thousands of replacement solar panels. The orders cite different reasons for the replacements including, "low performance," "under performance" and "catastrophic failures."

The orders are for replacements requested after the Department of Energy stopped stimulus money payments to Abound.

"These are solar panels we are now seeing reports that said they worked as long as you didn't put them in the sun," said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo. "Now the question is did the (Department of Energy) -- did they know something that the rest of should have known? Did Abound not tell the DOE something? These are questions that need to be answered."

Mitt Romney: 'You don't just pick winners, you pick losers'
H-MKUymY2I0

Solar panels that work as long as you don't put them in the sun. Yep, that's another fine winner you picked Mr. President.

Even conservatives don't like Romney:
av3q7-a-ayc

This is almost too easy today...

Chuck Todd: Republican Edge In Voter Enthusiasm Is 'Huge Problem' For Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/chuck-todd-republican-voters_n_1946586.html)

I guess it's a landslide for you guys - congrats!

Just a win.

Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university)

Way to go! I'm sure this forum helped sway the vote!
This should make a huge difference in your everyday life. Kudos!

Do you think there is a single person here whose opinion has changed?

So we should stop talking?

What's there to talk about? Nothing has changed except the circumstances. Romney thinks the US should reimplement gunboat diplomacy, the way to revive the american economy, while a mild recovery is on the way. If you could talk success Romney would be a shoe in but, Obama has demonstrated in the last four years you can't do that. Look, either way, you are screwed. You have had ten years of the war on terror and Romney wants to intensify it, but you can no longer change things with a wave of your hand, once you exported your recessions, but having exported your industries, now you will feel everyoneelses' recessions and no amount of political rhetoric will change that

This is almost too easy today...

Chuck Todd: Republican Edge In Voter Enthusiasm Is 'Huge Problem' For Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/chuck-todd-republican-voters_n_1946586.html)



Does anyone else find this bizarre? You bolster your numbers by motivating a certain percentage of the population to vote by creating a siege mentality amongst those who are susceptible to this type of influence.



Tut

So what you are saying is the american voters are sheep led to the slaughter by a judas goat

so what you are saying is the american voters are sheep led to the slaughter by a judas goatWell the older ones anyway.

so what you are saying is the american voters are sheep led to the slaughter by a judas goat


Not exactly. There will be a small percentage of the population that are heavily influenced by the media. If this percentage were only representative 8 or 9 percentage of your constituency then it is still worth the effort to motivate them enough to ensure that they get out and vote in a close election.

I would assume that the majority of the population are critical of the media and make their own decisions in terms of policy rather than believing there are a number of wars going on.


I also think that we can start looking at a complicit media and start tracing it back from there.


Tut

I would assume that the majority of the population are critical of the media and make their own decisions in terms of policy rather than believing there are a number of wars going on.
In the US I think that would be an incorrect assumption. I know this forum is not representative of the general population but when looking at a variety of sources it seems voters there are more emotion based in their voting. It would be better if voting was based on the candidate's policies but I don't think that's the majority at all.

In the US I think that would be an incorrect assumption. I know this forum is not representative of the general population but when looking at a variety of sources it seems voters there are more emotion based in their voting. It would be better if voting was based on the candidate's policies but I don't think that's the majority at all.


This may well be true. Emotion can play a big part depending on a variety of factors. Social, political and economic factors of the time no doubt can play a role in this. I guess when people are looking for the answers they turn to the media. In this regard the media has an important responsibility in the first instance.

Tut

I don't know Karma we are fairly evenly divided if you discount Tom's fence sitting

Does anyone else find this bizarre? You bolster your numbers by motivating a certain percentage of the population to vote by creating a siege mentality amongst those who are susceptible to this type of influence.



Tut

And your politicians don't pander to their base ? That is how political parties are created in the 1st place.

I also think that we can start looking at a complicit media and start tracing it back from there.

That has been my contention. However ;it has improved here as the media has come out of the closet and is not trying so hard to disguise it's biases ;and with the increasingly diverse media in the market place of ideas .

And your politicians don't pander to their base ? That is how political parties are created in the 1st place.



Pandering to their base is one thing, but deliberately creating a siege mentality is completely different altogether. We have to vote in elections therefore there is no benefit in 'firing up' people in order to motivate them enough to get out and vote. Seeing everyone has to vote we may as well vote on policy as anything else.

No doubt some people choose the anything else. But having just said that it is important to keep in mind that our media is different to yours in some areas.

Tut

That has been my contention. However ;it has improved here as the media has come out of the closet and is not trying so hard to disguise it's biases ;and with the increasingly diverse media in the market place of ideas .

Tom, I would completely disagree with this. There is no diversity of ideas. Just diversity of mouthpieces saying the same thing.

Just recently I asked for a non-American source in order to supplement wider reading on a topic and you oblige me with another American author.

Please note this is no a criticism of American authors.


Tut

Hello again,

Romney is winning now. Obviously, the polls are rigged.

excon

what's there to talk about?

I like to talk. That's kind of the whole point of this forum, to have discussions.


nothing has changed except the circumstances. Romney thinks the US should reimplement gunboat diplomacy, the way to revive the american economy, while a mild recovery is on the way. If you could talk success Romney would be a shoe in but, Obama has demonstrated in the last four years you can't do that. Look, either way, you are screwed. You have had ten years of the war on terror and Romney wants to intensify it,
But you can no longer change things with a wave of your hand, once you exported your recessions, but having exported your industries, now you will feel everyoneelses' recessions and no amount of political rhetoric will change that

You're just making crap up.

Does anyone else find this bizarre? You bolster your numbers by motivating a certain percentage of the population to vote by creating a siege mentality amongst those who are susceptible to this type of influence.



Tut

I don't find anything at all odd about people being enthusiastic. It's not a strictly American phenomenon.

what's there to talk about? nothing has changed except the circumstances. Romney thinks the US should reimplement gunboat diplomacy,

The paradox in the world is that many who condemn U.S. hegemony also seem to demand it.We'll see how the left likes the Obama doctrine when they start making demands for humanitarian intervention.

Romney was right...



Mitt Romney: 'You don't just pick winners, you pick losers'
H-MKUymY2I0

Solar panels that work as long as you don't put them in the sun. Yep, that's another fine winner you picked Mr. President.

And yet another loser pick (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08/lg-plant-that-got-150m-to-make-volt-batteries-in-michigan-puts-workers-on/?intcmp=trending#ixzz28oKst0pB) for Obama...


Plant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers

President Obama touted it in 2010 as evidence "manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States,” but two years later, a Michigan hybrid battery plant built with $150 million in taxpayer funds is putting workers on furlough before a single battery has been produced...

The 650,000-square-foot, $300 million facility was slated to produce 15,000 batteries per year, while creating hundreds of new jobs. But to date, only 200 workers are employed at the plant by by the South Korean company. Batteries for the Chevy Volts that have been produced have been made by an LG plant in South Korea.

The factory was partly funded by a $150 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. LG also received sizeable tax breaks from the local government, saving nearly $50 million in property taxes over 15 years and another $2.5 million annually in business taxes. Landing the factory was hailed as a coup when shovels first hit the ground.

“You are leading the way in showing how manufacturing jobs are coming right back here to the United States of America,” Obama told workers at the ground-breaking ceremony. “Our goal has never been to create a government program, but rather to unleash private-sector growth. And we're seeing results.”

I suppose failure is a result.

I suppose failure is a result.Hello again, Steve:

Spoken like a fellow who gets a paycheck.

I had a partner like you once... He thought his INVESTMENT was a sure thing, and when it wasn't, he wanted me to pay it back...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Spoken like a fellow who gets a paycheck.

I had a partner like you once... He thought his INVESTMENT was a sure thing, and when it wasn't, he wanted me to pay it back...

excon

I accept the risks of my investments so I'm not like him at all. I do however try and minimize those risks. Unlike Obama I don't jump in with both feet because the investment fits my political agenda. There was never any real market for a $40k electric car outside of Beverly Hills so invest accordingly, not on inflated expectations and hope.

By the way, has Obama ever commented on or taken responsibility for any of his many loser investments of OUR money?

Would you invest your money with someone like Obama and his proven track record of picking losers ?

would you invest your money with someone like Obama and his proven track record of picking losers ?Hello again, tom:

Spoken like ANOTHER fellow who gets a paycheck.. I don't know where you were, but he picked GM.

I thought right wingers LIKED American cars. No, huh?

excon

Aside from my reliable Toyotas I've always been a Ford man.

GM bailout was a fraud and a loser to the taxpayers . Even the judge who approved it is now 2nd guessing the legality ;and a law suit by the creditors who got screwed could lead to a reopening of the whole restructure deal .

Creditor Lawsuit Could Undo Elements of 2009 GM Bailout - Deal Journal - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/09/27/creditor-lawsuit-could-undo-elements-of-2009-gm-bailout/)

Hundreds of years of bankruptcy law supporting the idea that the senior bondholders are first in line and not a union pension fund, was thrown in the scrap heap by the deal . Yes ,GM is "still in business", but their position is tenuous at best .Traditional bankruptcy laws would've accomplished the same thing ,but they would be structually sounder and we would not have wasted taxpayers dollars in the effort.

Pandering to their base is one thing, but deliberately creating a siege mentality is completely different altogether. We have to vote in elections therefore there is no benefit in 'firing up' people in order to motivate them enough to get out and vote. Seeing everyone has to vote we may as well vote on policy as anything else.

No doubt some people choose the anything else. But having just said that it is important to keep in mind that our media is different to yours in some areas.

Tut

Check out my reply to Ex in this OP . Clearly voter enthusiasm is a factor in a system where we don't force people to vote . I contend that a non-vote is also making a valid democratic choice.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3284960-post4.html

The post-debate Obama strategy, Nikelodeon and Sesame Street...

bZxs09eV-Vc

Big Bird's people have since asked Team Obama to cease and desist, which is probably a good thing for his campaign. The RNC responded...

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/rnc-campaigncount.jpg

Jeff Emmanuel had fun with it...

PBS has a $475 million dollar budget, only 15% of which comes from the taxpayers .Sesame Workshop (the organization behind Sesame Street) is raking in an average of over $50 million per year in merchandizing . Cut the public funding immediately .

PBS has a $475 million dollar budget, only 15% of which comes from the taxpayers .Sesame Workshop (the organization behind Sesame Street) is raking in an average of over $50 million per year in merchandizing . Cut the public funding immediately .
With that thinking then why do the oil companies get subsidies?

They shouldn't and wouldn't if I ran things .

The oil company subsidies are millions upon millions more then PBS gets - that's where you should focus you efforts.

The oil company subsidies are millions upon millions more then PBS gets - that's where you should focus you efforts.

Neither should all the failing "green" companies.

Neither should all the failing "green" companies.
Yea but that's new, the oil subsidies have been going on for decades. How come you guys haven't had any success getting those stopped?

Pigs at the trough, there is a certain mentality in politics where if you feed the pigs at the trough all this lovely green stuff flows back to you

Yea but that's new, the oil subsidies have been going on for decades. How come you guys haven't had any success getting those stopped?

Yea but that's new? And that makes it better how? FYI, Romney said Exxon's tax breaks are "on the table" (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/260167-romney-open-to-nixing-oil-industry-tax-breaks). We'll see.

He also said that 47% of the country were lazy losers who will never take responsibility because they pay no taxes. My 87 year old mom is still pissed. Through her pill cutters away but don't tell on me!

I believe he more than displayed his compassion at the debate. He destroyed Team O's narrative carefully crafted narrative. Team O's newest strategy fits right in with the Nickelodeon/Sesame Street offensive, "nana nana boo boo, Romney's a lying poo poo!"

I believe he more than displayed his compassion at the debate.
What compassion? He doesn't know what that is.

Team O's newest strategy fits right in with the Nickelodeon/Sesame Street offensive, "nana nana boo boo, Romney's a lying poo poo!"Hey that's the same strategy used here too!

And yet Obama continues to lie

Hey that's the same strategy used here too!

One major difference, the element of truth is on my side.

One major difference, the element of truth is on my side.
Governor Romney hasn't yet told us what his truth is.

One major difference, the element of truth is on my side.
That's what all the unrepentant liars say!

The oil company subsidies are millions upon millions more then PBS gets - that's where you should focus you efforts.

What part of my response did you not understand ? But let me put this into perspective .Renewable energy companies have received 1000 times the subsidies that oil companies do, per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.So where is the dollar better spent ?
Again... I oppose subsidies to private industry . It is a liberal economic 'pick winners and losers concept that runs against my free market economy ideas .

Again... I oppose subsidies to private industry . It is a liberal economic 'pick winners and losers concept that runs against my free market economy ideas .Unfortunately that's never going to happen for either party as long as their pockets are lined with corporate donor money.

Federally Funded Green Energy Projects ? Not Such A Failure After All - Gas 2 (http://gas2.org/2012/10/04/federally-funded-green-energy-projects-not-such-a-failure-after-all/)

It is easy to say something has failed but what does failed mean? Well, if charted goals were set and not met than that would be a failure. Certainly if a business closed or filed for bankruptcy that would also be a failure. However, when Republicans say that Obama's clean energy campaign has failed they tend to site failed or struggling business and not the industry itself. Yes, some budding green businesses took federal loans and ended up closing shop. But for the few that failed many more prospered and overall the green energy industry is doing well on not only in America but on a global scale as well.

You do know the green industry goes beyond just solar panels don't you and the failure rate of green companies is 5% in the US.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/opinion/jones-romney-green-jobs/index.html

Good article Tal should be more of Romney's facts get checked along with his arithmetic

When you can win a debate with energy and style(?), but the facts are NON existent, that's truly winning ugly, but some don't care about facts. But the FACTS are coming out.

The facts are you get what you deserve so if you just accept what you are told and don't check you will be deceived.

Who knows if Romney really can bring a different approach, we are now four years on from a catastrophy, so you either stay the course or go off at a tangent. What you would like to do and what you can do are often very different. Obama couldn't have anticipated the impact of the Gulf oil crisis, it put a big didn't in the recovery, same with Afghanistan, who would have thought four years ago that would still be going on. Hell, he is still talking to Iran the way GWB was, no change there. Running another gunboat up the river isn't going to solve that

That's what all the unrepentant liars say!

I've already proved Team O lied about Al Qaeda and the Benghazi attacks (which is probably why our Press Secretary hasn't had a press briefing for over two weeks (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-white-house-press-briefing-last-15-days_654039.html)).

So where did Romney lie during the debate, which is their latest excuse for Obama getting thoroughly thrashed?

FYI...

BREAKING: Suffolk Polling Gives Florida, Virginia and North Carolina to ROMNEY – Will stop polling in these states! (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/suffolk-polling-yanks-workers-from-florida-north-carolina-and-virginia-gives-states-to-romney-video/)

So where did Romney lie during the debate, which is their latest excuse for Obama getting thoroughly thrashed?

Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/)

At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/)

The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004)

Fact Check: Romney's comparison of past, present Navy pointless - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-navy/index.html)

FACT CHECK: Romney spins one-sided story on trade, defense cuts in foreign policy speech - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fact-check-romney-spins-one-sided-story-on-trade-defense-cuts-in-foreign-policy-speech/2012/10/09/7ca4669c-11e1-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html)

Fact-checking the Romney campaign | Bluffton Today (http://www.blufftontoday.com/bluffton-opinion/2012-10-10/fact-checking-romney-campaign)

Fact Checking the Presidential Debate in Denver - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-in-denver/)

I don't find anything at all odd about people being enthusiastic. It's not a strictly American phenomenon.

So does this mean that such things as the so-called 'war on women' and attacks on the First Amendment are nothing more than a little bit of 'enthusiasm' on the part of the other side?


Tut

Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/)

At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/)

The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004)

Fact Check: Romney's comparison of past, present Navy pointless - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-navy/index.html)

FACT CHECK: Romney spins one-sided story on trade, defense cuts in foreign policy speech - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fact-check-romney-spins-one-sided-story-on-trade-defense-cuts-in-foreign-policy-speech/2012/10/09/7ca4669c-11e1-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html)

Fact-checking the Romney campaign | Bluffton Today (http://www.blufftontoday.com/bluffton-opinion/2012-10-10/fact-checking-romney-campaign)

Fact Checking the Presidential Debate in Denver - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-in-denver/)

The first is irrelevant to the question I asked and out of the actual news sources that aren't overtly partisan opinion pieces you have some spin. On both sides. Nice try.

Hello again, Steve:

I have a little lie that Romney told.. If I TELL you about it, though, you'll deny it's a lie, and you'll tell me about Obama's lies...

I'm not going to participate. I just HOPE the country's electorate is smart enough to pick the right guy.

Here's LIE you can tell. If Romney wins, he's going to appoint at least ONE right wing Supreme Court Justice, and that'll spell the END to Roe v Wade. Now, I know you don't understand the mechanics of the law, but take MY word for it, an abortion case WILL, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY work it's way to the high court.

I've heard you say, that if presented with an opportunity to END the HATED abortion, YOU say they'll blink.

Tell me again. I LOVE that story..

excon

So does this mean that such things as the so-called 'war on women' and attacks on the First Amendment are nothing more than a little bit of 'enthusiasm' on the part of the other side?


Tut

Again as with NK's complain, fact vs. fiction. The "war on women" is entirely manufactured to propagate that siege mentality. An ultrasound bill is not a "war on women." Voting against the redundant Lily Ledbetter Act is not a "war on women." Not wanting to pay for contraceptives for Sandra Fluke, a graduate from a school whose grads start at over $150k, is not a "war on women."

Perhaps you recall George Stephanopoulos' gotcha question (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/08/on-impossible-rhetorical-question-about-contraceptives-liberal-media-side-with-stephanopoulos-over-romney/#ixzz28u8clcZ6) at the New Hampshire Republican primary debate.


Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor in the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, asked Romney if he believes “states have the right to ban contraception — or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Does anyone remember Romney's answer (I know, NK will say he lied)?


“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

No state wants to ban contraceptives, no candidate wanted to ban contraceptives, yet this was the question asked followed by months of fear mongering about how Republicans want to take us back to the dark ages.

And FYI, I'm sure he's just lying again but Romney said (http://news.yahoo.com/romney-promises-no-abortion-legislation-004508435--election.html) there would be no abortion legislation if elected.


"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told the Des Moines Register in an interview posted on the newspaper's website.

So what's the beef? The only "war on women" by Republicans is in the left's imagination.

On the other hand, the attack on the first amendment is real. When this administration unilaterally forces religious employers to violate their beliefs or cease their ministry as it is it's no joke. Ex and Tal can whine all they want about how churches shouldn't be a business but I've more than proven the church was into medicine and education long before the government intruded, and I would imagine you already knew that.

Why would Romney go totally against his deep held religious beliefs?

Why would Romney go totally against his deep held religious beliefs?

Why would Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? We're electing a president, not a pastor.

We're electing a president, not a pastor.In Romney's case it would be both.

And FYI, I'm sure he's just lying again but Romney said there would be no abortion legislation if elected.
Hello again, Steve:

Ok, I guess maybe I DO need to explain the mechanics of the court... I BELIEVE Romney.. There will be NO legislation banning abortion or contraceptives... But, there's enough legislation out there for a case to be challenged in court, and for it to work it's way up to the Supreme Court...

Let's just take some of the recently enacted laws that require abortion clinics to have so many nails per square foot, and so many parking places per visitor... I'm NOT quoting the law exactly, of course, but the intent of these laws is to CLOSE down abortion clinics.. Let's say THAT law will be challenged in court, as I'm SURE it will be.

Now, the law, of course, deals with nails and parking places for buildings. It's NOT about abortion, per se - or IS IT? Now, you'd think that the Supreme Court would be limited, therefore, to ruling on nails and parking places... But, that ISN'T how the law works..

I submit, that with a NEW right wing justice, when THAT case, and THAT case alone, hits the Supreme Court, it will give them an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade...

You say, when GIVEN that opportunity, they'll blink. I cannot imagine where you get that notion. Assuming you believe me, and maybe you don't, but you can't use the excuse that they'll NEVER even HAVE the OPPORTUNITY to overturn it. The truth is, they'll have AMPLE opportunity.

excon

In Romney's case it would be both.

Obviously you based that on his record as governor and money-grubbing CEO.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, I guess maybe I DO need to explain the mechanics of the court... I BELIEVE Romney.. There will be NO legislation banning abortion or contraceptives... But, there's enough legislation out there for a case to be challenged in court, and for it to work it's way up to the Supreme Court...

Let's just take some of the recently enacted laws that require abortion clinics to have so many nails per square foot, and so many parking places per visitor... I'm NOT quoting the law exactly, of course, but the intent of these laws is to CLOSE down abortion clinics.. Let's say THAT law will be challenged in court, as I'm SURE it will be.

Now, the law, of course, deals with nails and parking places for buildings. It's NOT about abortion, per se - or IS IT? Now, you'd think that the Supreme Court would be limited, therefore, to ruling on nails and parking places... But, that ISN'T how the law works..

I submit, that with a NEW right wing justice, when THAT case, and THAT case alone, hits the Supreme Court, it will give them an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade...

You say, when GIVEN that opportunity, they'll blink. I cannot imagine where you get that notion. Assuming you believe me, and maybe you don't, but you can't use the excuse that they'll NEVER even HAVE the OPPORTUNITY to overturn it. The truth is, they'll have AMPLE opportunity.

excon

I think your response would be promoting that "siege mentality" Tut mentioned. You really seem to be wasting a lot of time this year worrying about conspiracies instead of reality.

Hello again, Steve:

One of us is deluded, that's for sure.

excon

You should also put an as optiln lol romeny's an idiot and obama cool's or allow more options. Romeny might be but obam's better and is a good president but people needs to know that he can't fix everything on his own and some of his good attempts have been blocked. He also just can't on focus one one section and yes I'm Canadian

Hello again, Steve:

One of us is deluded, that's for sure.

excon

Dude, it ain't me.

Let me add to the mythical Democrat wars to create a siege mentality... the war on Sesame Street (http://times247.com/articles/big-bird-flap-flops-even-with-liberal-media). WaPo gives that 4 Pinocchios (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-mitt-romney-want-to-kill-big-bird/2012/10/09/336f9172-127c-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html).

Team O is pretty desperate.

I guess they must be, with Mittens big lead and assured win.

They kept Biden secluded for 6 days to prep for tonights debate .

So where has the other fellow been, he is almost invisable

"Let me add to the mythical Democrat wars to create a siege mentality.. the war on Sesame Street..."

Hi Steve,

While you are with me on this one perhaps we could also point of the siege mentality created by the other side of politics as well.


Tut

He's been on the campaign trail . I can't help it if the compliant press only puts him in the news if they can take a shot at him ,or marginalize him with trivia about his workouts.

Paul Ryan: All Pumped Up For His Closeup - LightBox (http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/11/paul-ryan-all-pumped-up-for-his-closeup/#1)

We can always turn to Fox News for hard hitting, unbiased news:
Search for paul ryan (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=paul+ryan&submit=Search)

Hi NK,

You means those on the other side of politics responsible for creating their version of the siege mentality?

Tut

Normally I'd answer "yes", but in the case of my post it shows that Ryan has been hiding as well, probably working on his highly-touted abs as we learn from Fox.

Tut, I don't deny it on both sides. I believe I said something to the effect that the other side's 'wars', as in the "war on women" are mythical and intentionally deceptive, while he attack on the first amendment is real.

Tut, I don't deny it on both sides. I believe I said something to the effect that the other side's 'wars', as in the "war on women" are mythical and intentionally deceptive, while he attack on the first amendment is real.

So the right wings ultra sound laws, personhood amendments, defining rape, taking away choices is NOT an attack on women? You mean defunding planned parenthood, including cancer screens to stop the 3% that goes to abortions isn't an attack on women? Then what is it?

So the right wings ultra sound laws, personhood amendments, defining rape, taking away choices is NOT an attack on women?

We've more than exhausted that discussion. The only one involved in this campaign with extreme views is the guy that refused to support a law protecting babies born alive after botched abortions.


You mean defunding planned parenthood, including cancer screens to stop the 3% that goes to abortions isn't an attack on women? Then what is it?

I would never give PP a penny, that's the most vile, disgusting, deceptive, underhanded, subversive organization in this country in my opinion. Besides, I thought that's what Obamacare was for.

PP... "eugenics are us"

PP... "eugenics are us"
I know, you guys are just like China.

PP... "eugenics are us"

Only one dude in this race wouldn't support a ban on killing baby girls that survived an abortion. Obama's to the left of NARAL on that.

I know, you guys are just like China.

No ; Margaret Sanger ,the patron Saint of the left 'reproductive rights ' movement was an unrepentant racist eugenicist .

Hello tom:

I don't know.. You like Ayn Rand... She was an atheist.. Can't atheist's write good stuff?

excon

I don't see the connection . Sanger set up an organization where her dream of culling the black population could be realized . Rand's vision of Objectivism is ultimately an atheist philosophy that's true . But beyond the philosophising ,she did not set up an institution to implement her phiolosphy . Yes it's true that I could never completely embrace Objectivism ,but I completely repudiate Sanger and her master race ideas. (have you seen the photos of her with Hitler ? )
Here is the big difference . Rand believed in the worth of the individual .Sanger ? She thought culling the herd was good for the collective.

Sanger ? She thought culling the herd was good for the collective.

I really don't see those views as different to the republican philosophy of letting the poor look after themselves

I really don't see those views as different to the republican philosophy of letting the poor look after themselvesHaha, I never looked at it that way but it's true!

Hello again, tom:

So, it DOESN'T matter who they are... All that matters is that you BELIEVE them... If it was me, I wouldn't be throwing stones.

excon

I really don't see those views as different to the republican philosophy of letting the poor look after themselves

That would be true if the Republic phiolosophy was 'letting the poor look after themselves '. But that of course would not be the Republic philosophy ,or mine.

Biden just took Ryan to school about fighting for people or fighting for profits and ideology.

?? You were watching a different debate. Biden reminded me of the old Weekend Update skits on SNL where Chevy Chase would make faces behind the back of the person he was sparring with. Biden looked like he had one too many Red Bull.

I hear some think Romney is winning, it all comes down to the ballot box and how strongly the electorate feels, now I didn't want to give comfort to Tom and Speech who think this is the natural order of things asserting itsself, but guys consider this, either way you are screwed

??? you were watching a different debate. Biden reminded me of the old Weekend Update skits on SNL where Chevy Chase would make faces behind the back of the person he was sparring with. Biden looked like he had one too many Red Bull.

http://blog.jetwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snl-104_5.jpg

Haha, Chevy looks like Ryan.

Hello again,

If you're a right winger, Ryan won. If you're ALIVE, Biden won.

excon

If you live somewhere else no one won, we are all screwed

RNC Web Ad: "Laughing at the Issues" (Official Version) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCtemaHgjyA&feature=player_embedded#)!

Hello again, tom:

What you wingers saw as laughing, we saw as incredulousness at the balls this young kid had.. I don't think we're going to make a video out of it, though...

excon

Incredulity fixes nothing. Where was his plan?

The kid ? Ryan came off looking like the mature statesman . Biden and the President offer one and only one plan... tax increases.
I can't believe that some consider Biden Sec State material . Can you imagine his histrionics ,exaggerated facial expressions ,maniacal grin and uncontrolled laughing when going head to head with a foreign leader ?

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
Proverbs 29:9

Can you imagine his histrionics ,exaggerated facial expressions ,maniacal grin and uncontrolled laughing when going head to head with a foreign leader ?
No, only with a geeky overgrown teenager.

No, only with a geeky overgrown teenager.

I can picture Biden with the Mahdi Hatter, "well that's just malarkey and stuff."

Ryans whole thing was stylish malarkey and fact checks will bear that out as it did with Romney's malarkey AND stuff!

Well I would say Obama is winning now, that Romney is just plain bad mannered

The President had a pulse last night so of course it will be spun as a Obama win.Bad mannered ? Go back and look at how often the President interupted Romney. The President took lessons from Biden.

Hello:

Two things stood out.. Romney GAVE Obama an opening for him to CLOSE with the 47%. Big, HUGE mistake...

And, when Romney was ready to GET Obama on what he said the day after the attacks in Benghazi, he got GOT instead...

Obama in a landslide.

excon

And, when Romney was ready to GET Obama on what he said the day after the attacks in Benghazi, he got GOT instead...
with a hat tip from Candy Crowley who amazingly took sides . The transcript of his Rose Garden statement with the throwaway line about terrorism does not answer the question about a cover up for weeks after... including an appearance at the UN where he clung to a false narrative.

Hello again, tom:


with a hat tip from Candy Crowley who amazingly took sides .Nahhh... Candy didn't do him in. The TRUTH did him in. Words matter. Your guy DIDN'T know what words Obama said. He should have - especially when he was going to use them as a GOTCHA... But, he got GOT instead... I LOVED it.. He got hoisted on his own petard, whatever that means..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

Excon

That Romney doesn't know what terrorism is, I'd be terrified he might win if I were you

Hello again, clete:


I'd be terrified he might winI am.

Excon

Here is the entire Rose Garden statement... including the innocuous throwaway comment about terrorism :

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens's body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. 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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT

In context ,the President linked the attack to the 'denegration ' of Islam... i.e. the Youtube video trailer for a movie no one saw.
His comment about terrorism came after he spoke of the 9-11-2001 attacks on the US.

Hello again, tom:

You MISS the point.. This is very simple. Romney accused the president of NOT using the words, "act of terror". He was wrong, and he got CAUGHT.. That's it. All the OTHER words the president uttered are subterfuge...

excon

It's a big leap to claim his Rose Garden address is calling the attack on the Benghazi compound a terrorist attack . For a week after the Adm sold it as a spontaneous demonstration against a video. They sent Ambassador Rice on the Sunday news shows to reinforce that false narrative . That is the only relevant issue . It's the throw away line about 'act of terror' that is subterfuge

Hello again, tom:


it's a big leap to claim his Rose Garden address is calling the attack on the Benghazi compound a terrorist attack .This is not about "claims". It's about three little words. Romney accused the president of NOT saying them, and he was WRONG.

But, it's MORE than three little words.. It's about Romneys' incompetence... It's about his inability to lead. There's NO question that Romney was setting up the president about THOSE words.. He challenged him about them.. He raised his eyebrows and gave him a look like "I've got you now, you SOB", and he was WRONG, and he got CAUGHT.

It would seem to me, that if I were going to make a really BIG DEAL out of three words that I said WEREN'T uttered, I would have made ABSOLUTELY certain that they WEREN'T uttered. Romney didn't do that. That's a management FAILURE of monumental proportions...

Your distraction is not going to FIX that.. He's TOAST, and he SHOULD be toast.. He's a miserable FAILURE.

Excon

Let's not forget the UN address 2 weeks later where his entire focus regarding the attack was the video...


And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

(APPLAUSE)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE)

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy...

This is not about "claims". It's about three words. Romney accused the president of NOT saying them, and he was WRONG.

By the way, long after she quit being moderator in "correcting" Romney on the Libya thing, Candy Crowley admitted Romney was right (http://washingtonexaminer.com/debate-moderator-candy-crowley-romney-was-right-in-main-libya-argument-but-he-picked-the-wrong-word/article/2510979#.UH63BmfpzKd), "He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.”

Hello again, Steve:


Let's not forget the UN address 2 weeks laterLet's DO forget about it... It has NOTHING to do with the particular issue we're talking about. Romney accused the president of not saying the words, "act of terror". He was WRONG. That's the issue, and that's the ONLY issue...

OF COURSE, you want to DISTRACT us. I would too. It was a FAILURE of MONUMENTAL proportions.. In fact, it's going to COST him the presidency.

Excon

Nah the President's parsing of words ala Clintoon does not give him a pass that the lack of leadership on this issue falls on his desk.

Hello again, tom:

Again, this is NOT about leadership. It's about whether THREE words came out of the presidents MOUTH. Romney said they didn't. He was WRONG...

What does THAT say about his leadership of his own campaign? To me, it says that he's utterly incompetent.

excon

ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I...

CROWLEY:... quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?


OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the -- your secretary --

OBAMA: Candy?

ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how --

OBAMA: Candy, I'm --

ROMNEY: -- this was a spontaneous --

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me --

OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation --

CROWLEY: I know you --

OBAMA: -- about foreign policy.
...
Candy Crowley is NOW saying Romney was right and her memory played her false when she said they were both right. .

CNN's Candy Crowley: Romney Was Actually Right On Libya - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs)

If Bob Schieffer does his due dilligence ;this conversation will continue Monday and the President won't be able to hide behind Candy Crowley's skirt.