The only reason you say Obama won is cause he was more forceful and more in command? Yeah, he sounds like it even though all of his stupid plans are going to ruin the country. He's allowing illegal immigrants that have already been in America for God knows how long to become an American citizen?? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He's raising taxes on businesses who actually supply the jobs. That will hire more people for sure. Don't get me started about Obamacare...my local doctor said he's look at the document and it's thousands of pages and he doesn't even know if he's going to continue to be a doctor. People don't actually know what this is going to do to the country

facts are you disconnected with reality $4500 loss of family income,43 million on food stamps,high poverty.23 million on the unemployment list, another 20 million looking for a full time job not counted on the unemplooyed list and a gnp of under 2.0
which if it repeats next mo. a recession will be renewed real facts don.'t lie
JACK KAVANAUGH

"much more forceful" -> ya, he had a pulse, Mr 0's record is one of failure, read below

yeah, he was in command of the facts, whether they were right or wrong. He was very forceful in not answering the questions as well.

Obama is NOT to blame. We were a country ready to crumble when he took office. He told everyone that it was going to take more than one term to get everything straight that the republicans have been destroying for decades. May I also remind you that the President can only do so much when the majority of congress is made up of -guess what? REPUBLICANS. They are doing everything in their power to try to make Obama fail. Romney is a sneak, a snake and a liar. I disliked him as Governor of Ma. I would hate to see him President. Everyone hated him when he was the Governor of Ma and when he ran against McCain, what's the difference now?

JHV, in 2009 Obama said, and I quote, "...if I don't have this done in 3 years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition".
He had 100% of the federal legislative government (House, Senate and White House) under DEMOCRAT control with a super majority (60 votes) in the Senate for 2 years!
Today, the MAJORITY (2/3) of that is still DEMOCRAT! They hold the Senate and the WH.

Bob I need to clarify one fact. No Super majority in the senate for the Dems from 2008-1010. At the start of the 111th Congress, the Democrats held 56 seats in the Senate, with the two independents continuing to caucus with the Democrats for a total of 58.

Bill, The Senate prior to Scott Brown's swearing in in Feb of 2010, was D - 58, I - 2 and R - 40. The 2 Independents were/are Leiberman (life long D and caucused with the D's) and Bernie Sanders (avowed Socialist who also caucused with the D's). Kirk was appointed by Patrick quickly after Kennedy's death for one reason, to be the 60th D vote on Obamacare. Brown became the 41st R vote which helped the R's slow down the D steam rolling.

You are correct that it wasn't 2 full years.

Romney was a liar and a cheat when he was the Governor of Ma. When he ran for President and lost against McCain everyone hated him. The President is one person and does not make all the decisions. Congress (which is made of the majority of republicans) block everything he tries to do. If Romney gets elected this country will be lost.

You say Romney has a plan... He says he has a plan but has yet to tell us any of the details of that plan!

you need to read more

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

If you listen you will hear Mitt say he intends to use principles like these on tax overhaul:
- work with congress
- not lower burden on upper income individuals
- relief to middle class (making us more competitive due to this being most small businesses)
- keep it deficit neutral

Also if you read the Simpson and Bowles report you will see that the feds forgo $1.1 trillion per year (first paragraph in section 2 Tax Reform), using the math the dems like the most that is $11 trillion over 10 years. $11 trillion is more than $5 trillion ("arithmetic") so it is doable. The dems just want to negotiate it now during the election. I think Mitt is correct to just lay out the outline and the principles he'll use. This is far more than Mr 0 has said about the next 4 years.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

-----

And now please share Mr 0's plan/details

thanks

JVH
did you just wake up in cave? How have republicans been destroying everything for decades.? Since 1960, I think republicans have had only 8 years in office more than Dems

And I forgot to add in another point, which is the moderation (or lack thereof) was once again a weak spot. Candy quickly lost control. Seriously, why can't they just shut off their mics when they run over their time limits?

I disagree with your assessment of the debate (and felt that Obama made better arguments), but agree, they should just turn off the mics. Neither of the two moderators so far have been able to control the debates. And neither of the candidates have been respectful of the moderators.

typical "no record" talking points, the CNN (Clinton News Network) generated "binder" controversy takes the place of Big Bird. priceless!

He was pro-choice before he was pro-life...He created Romneycare before Obamacare became an extension of our current healthcare laws...Romney/Ryan are singing the same tune as former President Bush, so... Bush took a government surplus and turned it into a huge government deficit and put this country into a tail spin. Obama is trying to dig us out of it... and we are on an uphill projection but it will take time no matter who the president is~ I personally would like to vote for an individual who was running for president who wasn't among the top 1% wealthiest people in this country! Imagine that...someone who understands you and me...

G - 2 Points..
1. Romneycare is a state run program staying with the long US tradition of states doing what is not explicitly in the Constitution for the feds to do. Obamacare is a federal take over of what should be a state program.

2. Both Obama and Romney are in the top 1%. So is most if not all 535 Reps and Senators in DC. If you are really looking for that vote, you need to not vote for a D or R.

@ Jule Unger, woman's rights are not republican or democratic and are so low on the todem pole of importance in regards to this election.... It is just Obama's way of deflecting his hurrendous waste of time of the last 4 years... Romney is not against woman rights just as I don't think Obama is either. Woman should be very worried about their equal pay as they will remain UNEMPLOYED if Obama gets in again. Romney clearly stated his points, very well and articulate and in all with a very bias moderator, so I would say he won. It was nice at least to see the president actually show up and REALIZE he might have to earn this election and that he didn't dumb America down enought to think he had it in the bag, JUST TRY to see through Obama's smokescreen campaign. or is BARRY SOTEREO??

The 1950s would be a dream, Julie. Romney and Ryan want to shove women back to the 17th century. Don't forget Romney's comment about the "sharp tongued women" on the view. When was the last time that phrase was used? 1750? And don't forget Little Scottie Boo-Boo Brown who thanked the Tea Party in his acceptance speech as Senator. There's a reason the Tea Party paid for his campaign.

PP Longstocking. Who the heck watches the View of all things? They are a bunch of hens in a hen house. I'm a woman and that show offends me and my gender!

And yes, they are sharp tongued.

Women's rights are low on the totem pole, Molly? Preventive care for low and middle income women-- gone under Romney. Abortion rights -- gone under Romney. Pre-natal screening for middle and low income women -- gone under Romney. Reproductive rights and care -- gone under Romney. So women's health is not important? But we can leave work at 5 pm to go home and make dinner. Back to the 1950s for women -- a sure thing under Romney.

Jeez louise already, you sound like a bunch of hysterical women! If Obama gets back in, you won't have to worry about leaving work at 5 p.m. to go make dinner...you very well might not have a job!

@Diane DeVivo, are you for real "no healthcare at all for woman under Romney/Ryan" do you even realize what you are saying????? Only rich woman will have healthcare. Those are exactly the "DUMBED DOWN AMERICA" comments Obama has been working on... The not very bright and uneducated women.... Be proud.

Why does Pres. Obama pay his female staffers less than his male staffers? Where is the equality?

No questions about, Romney should clobber Obama in the next debate, given that Romney's only foreign policy experiences are the outsourcing of US jobs to China and his foreign bank accounts in Switzerland and the Bahamas.

Quasi, what did you say when Obama was running in 2008? When he had zero experience in foreign policy AND domestic policy (voting present isn't leading).

All Romney has to do to win Monday is stick to the facts. The Middle East is burning, Obama lied about Libya, Israel doesn't trust us, North Africa is a tinder box waiting for a match. Obama's foreign policy has been a complete failure.

Bob,

What can Obama, or any other US president do to stop the march of History in the Middle East? Send the Marines (once more) to Egypt, Tunisia, Syria? It is so arrogant and presumptuous for the US to believe they can manipulate the rest of the World at will. The US has never seen a dictator it did not like, and this is precisely why we have such a good reputation around the World. Just ask the Egyptian people.

Quasi, talk to anyone from that region. There is one thing they respect and that is strength. You NEVER apologize and bow! This didn't "just start", Obama ushered it in.
Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the head table which started this.

LMFAO...you crack me up.
No offense but did you lose you brains with your hair[humor].

Ironmike, as long as you're posting the same crap on RabidRepublicanBlog.com, you lose all credibility, so I won't pick apart your entire argument. I assume your "Mrs Java the Hutt" comment is a shot at Candy Crowley's weight (hilarious that you're the one deciding which candidate is more gentelmanly while making comments like that), so you could at least get the spelling right - it's Jabba the Hutt you half-wit.

Hey Joe and whatsup...why do you guys like Obama?? Just curious? Do you even know what his plans our for the next four years? Don't even say he's cutting taxes because he's not. He's allowing the bush tax cuts expire, tax businesses who supply the jobs, and Obamacare will raise taxes even more. What Obama considers middle class is an income of 50,000 and less. Obama considers me rich at 100,000. That is not rich. That is me working for my own damn money and it shouldn't be wasted on his bull crap plans. Tell me about Obama not Romney

Sure Michael, I'll get to that. First tell me in what sense Obama has said $50k is middle class and $100k is rich. Regarding the Bush tax cuts, the proposal has been letting it expire on individuals with over $200k or families with over $250k in income. And for the businesses, are you referring to the ones that are taxed as individuals with over $250k or do you mean the efforts to close loopholes? To the extent taxes on over $250k are reverted to 90's levels, my wife and I will be affected, and that's okay with me because I think any solution to our long-term debt and near-term economic challenges needs to involve both spending cuts and increases in revenue (taxes). So let's get back to what Obama would do. Well, first of all, he already showed a willingness to tackle the long-term challenges - the so-called "grand bargain" that would address social security, medicare, defense and taxes. Many republicans bought in until it became clear that the tea partiers in the house would never go along. Let's see, what else...

He won't appoint judges that put Roe v. Wade in jeopardy. He won't drive toward an immigration policy that involves "self deportation". He has proven tough but not stupid on foreign policy. He will follow-through with Obamacare, which both allows for near universal coverage and forces everyone into the pool so we're not paying their emergency room bills.

"grand bargain" -> you need to do some reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

while it did break-down when Mr 0 went back to the magic $ well, the only thing it proves is Mr 0 is NOT a leader

"not stupid on foreign policy" -> WOW where to start, clearly Mr 0 has some splaaaaining to do

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/officials-cia-report-blamed-militants-not-mob-within-24-hours-of-libya-attack/2012/10/19/eb29584a-19be-11e2-ad4a-e5a958b60a1e_story.html

Officials: CIA report blamed militants, not mob, within 24 hours of Libya attack

WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

Thanks Vincent for the post. Let's clear something up real quick - Mr 0 is not clever. Not sure if someone ever told you it was or for some reason you just think it is, but it's not. Really, not at all.

Second, it's funny that's what you take away from that entire article. Despite the fact that they didn't make a counteroffer and that the author notes that it's highly likely any of the iterations would never have passed the house. And just a side note - I don't agree that everything Obama has done has been great, and I also think both parties are too scared to address the 3 biggest components of the deficit - social security, medicare and defense - because the other side would vilify them for even going near them. Just look at that article - republicans were hesitent to agree to any cuts in medicare because they were already planning to use that part of Obamacare against the democrats in 2012.

With regards to foreign policy, you're cherry-picking a single, tragic event that resulted in 4 deaths. Please tell me you think Bush did a better job. PLEASE. I won't say 9/11 was his fault - it was a failure across various parts of government paired with an enemy that was committed to American deaths. But you can go ahead and say the attacks in Benghazi were his and his alone. How about the two wars? Failure to kill or capture Bin Laden? Give me a break...

>> attempt to politicize Libya

You mean 'as opposed to the Obama Cartel's 5-week attempt to sweep the Benghazi Massacre under the rug and off your TV screen'?

Obama & Company's inexplicable and callous indifference to world events – in particular those events which effect our security – only lead me to conclude they are (1). anti-American, (2). pro-Islamist, and (3). one-world socialists. AND, very practiced liars!

The Libya coverup by this administration is shameful. Take off your blinders! 4 Americans were killed. THe administration and others listened to it as it was happening, as is usual protocol when an embassy is under attach. Then, for weeks later they blamed a stupid video. They were caught in their lies. It should be front and center on every newspaper! I'm sure many of our soldiers and others in the Middle East right now wonder if the President has their back. There were 4 coffins that didn't have to be.

You call that a debate? With all the technology we have there should be a line(lie) judge. Each candidate can call for 3 time (lie)outs. The line judge will pull down the computer screen for all to view and fact check the issue on the spot. Run the rabbit down the trail and see all the droppings. All these politicians are sloppy and are aided and abetted by the media.

The presidential debate committee is pathetic. I'd like to see a debate between Gingrich and the presidential debate committee. Finally, if all the 99% -ers and the 47% vote for Obama then Obama should get 146% of the vote. Romney should get about -(negative, deficit) 48% of the vote. So, please all you 99% -ers and the 47%-ers relax you win. Why you don't even have to go vote The government will do that for you.

I hope to see all the 99% -ers and the 47%-ers in the front of the riot lines as they are in Greece, Spain, and coming soon to the american economy nearest and dearest to you.

Good one!

if you can look at the timeline of the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack and come to a conclusion that there are no "lies", "coverup", "mistakes", "<you insert a word>" ... then you are not being honest. It was botched BEFORE the attack (denied additional security) and all along since!

@Craig why don't you go back and read the transcripts. Everyone knows so you can stop trying to convince everyone what he meant in regards to the Rose Garden transcripts. Everyone knows he was not referring to the Libya attack. Obama's administration tried to cover it up from the get go! Noone should even have to debate this because if Obama acted like a real leader he would have been honest with the American people from the get go. Then there would not have been a "Gotcha" moment by Romney.

From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 09/27/2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Wow, you guys are amazing. You can read those remarks and come up with the idea he was talking about 9/11/01? You have taken mind-reading to new heights.

"You can read those remarks and come up" -> can you read the timeline and arrive at the conclusion that the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack, the information shared, ... was done in a professional manner indicative of what is expected in the USA?

That whole answer was disastrous for Romney. He was trying to say that he went out of his way to include women in what was typically a mens club...he could have stopped there. Instead, he came out saying that he didn't even know any competent women and had to assemble binders of competent women so he could pick some, like Russian mail order brides. I really hope it was just another Romney gaffe but I fear that it is telling about who he is.

@BAV - Add into that the way he told the story about the Binder was False

Check out this story:
http://m.thephoenix.com/boston/blogpost.aspx?id=828852

Romney's got women in binders because women need to be controlled.

This line by Mitt Romney from Tuesday's debate was a real howler!

"I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible."

Romney's definition of flexibility — giving women enough time to go home and cook dinner — ignored the fact that both men and women need flexibility to manage their family responsibilities. Even worse is the fact that Rmoney seems to think there was some sort of question about whether or not women should be in the workforce to begin with. What other explanation is there for his weird "if" statement?

Tom, actually you are wrong. If they were not made in China they would make them in Thailand, Malaysia or Vietnam. The price would be the same.
The price isn't set by the cost to build the price is set by the profit margin Apple wants and what people will pay. It is the same reason many US manufacturers moved to China, Mexico etc. They can make their product for cheaper, sell for the same price and make more profit because of higher margins.

Oh yea, Japan is now buying up lots of US debt and will soon eclipse China as our largest creditor. So that will also continue.

"There are men serving life in Leavenworth who did less damage to us than Obama has."

That is just an amazingly, ridiculous comment. We get it, you don't like Obama.

Can you name 1 special forces operative that Obama has outed their Indentity? I bet you can't, the only organization that has outed a special forces operative was ......... wait for it ....... FOX NEWS - Who outed the name of the SEAL who wrote the book on the Bin Laden raid.

Craig, they released that it was "Seal Team 6" that killed Bin Laden two days after and 3 months later a helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan killing about 24 of them. It was called a trap by the Taliban to lure in the chopper.

Just releasing the unit name was a huge gaffe in protocol. When Biden said it many of the Seals called their families to wipe any reference to them from all social media. Biden put hundreds of lives in potential danger.

@ Bob.......Do not lie to voice your opinion. Facts are facts..............The Faux News, outed seal team 6 member.................Geez, can you google before posting? http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-outs-member-of-navy-seal-team-that-killed-osama-bin-laden/
And Iron Mike- Really? Seriously?.Dude-Are you on heavy meds?

I LOVE IT when Republicans turn into foreign policy experts and become outraged over [insert Fox talking point]. Their poster boy, George W. Bush and his gang were responsible for 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of citizens and troops that followed. That administration took a national disaster which united us internationally and turned the world into what it is right now. Republican cheerleaders have zero credibility where any of this is concerned.

Nadine, can you read and comprehend? That was a single ex-member that wrote a book. The administration named them within 2 days after the kill which was a breach of protocol. Which was why the book was written BTW. Reports were asking Gates at a presser about 4 days after the mission and he turned red in rage that they had "Seal Team 6 killed him".
BTW - No I don't lie.

The connection between the Salvadoran families involved with Bain's founding and those who financed death squads was discovered by the Boston Globe in 1994 and later by the Salt Lake Tribune in 1999. Way to go starting a small business, Mitt!

as long as Romney believes that women are second class citizens I cannot understand how any human being can cast a vote for him. Maybe it's because I am thinking with my tiny woman-sized brain and my double X chromosomes only permit me to comprehend things no more difficult than cooking dinner.

He had no business, administrative, or political experience before 2008

-------------

Completely and patently false. Obama was a US Senator from 2005-2008.

"US Senator" -> ya community organizer to senator in Chicago (a sterling record)
;)

And Romney - a one-term Governor to Olympic Organizing Committee chairman, to presidential candidate.

sterling record in the senate

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

@Emily M, Those are your words not ROMNEY's . I certainly do not need anyone man, woman or child Romney or Obama to tell me my worth. I cook for my family!!

As opposed to Romney's zero senate votes, ever.

Emily,
Where did you hear that Romney thought women were second class citizens? Can you provide a link? Thought not. Anyways, in Romneys tenure as Governor, he was applauded for appointing so many women in cabinet positions and not based on party affiliation, but for their expertise. That's someone who supports a woman in my book. It seems YOU are the one with the gender problem.

It is very true that the teabagging republicans have stonewalled the POTUS on everything. They signed pledges with Grover Norquist about no taxing. They are idiots. Romney is indeed against women-we have a war on women right now by the Ruthugs.I can't believe any women in her right mind would vote for men who would want to control their (Womens') choices - Lyin' Ryan calls a pregnancy occurring from rape a gift of god. Romney is not pro-choice. He is anti womens' rights and and equal pay for equal work. That's like women voting for Brown over Warren. Wake up sisters, this is war!

The war on woman comments are unbelievable. I hear and understand what Mitt has to say and I agree with him. Mr 0 has no record to run on, that causes this war on woman narrative. I have 3 young daughters tonight one said "Mitt does not want to allow woman to vote" (she heard it from a friend in school; or misunderstood some other school time comment in this vein). I explained this bogus war on woman to them. Those making comments on the existence of a war on woman truly suffer dem dementia.

yup, Mr 0 has a failed record and no plan of his own so he must "mope and blame", how presidential

Dems mock Romney tax plan with website that makes it impossible to click on the details

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/10/16/dems-mock-romney-tax-plan-website-makes-it-impossible-click-details

Vincent-

The web site gives just as much detail as Mr. Rmoney himself has provided oh his proposed tax plan, so how can you complain?

@Stiv, you may want to turn up the volume on your TV he explained many times last night!! I cannont understand why anyone keeps saying that! You may not like the plan that Romney has, but he has certainly stated it. Obama's is just the class warfare of taking from what he calls the rich and give to the poor... I don't like the plan but that is Obama's Plan. I don't know about his number of $200,000+ are the wealthy anyways, with this economy that is barely middle class these days.... Between Gas, Electricity, Food, Real estate taxes, school fees, all going up Obama needs to have a reality check. He is going to make everyone POOR!!!!

Specifics and detail, Molly, specifics and detail - of which Rmoney has provided neither. He claims that he wants to eliminate many deductions/loopholes in the the Federal Tax Code - please list all of those that he has specifically mentioned.

As for your comment that an income of $200,000 is barely middle class - I see that you and Mr. Rmoney are in firm agreement. I'd hazard a guess that very very few people agree with you.

Hmm Mitt taught these lessons to Mr 0 in the first debate:

- as president you are entitled to ... but you are not entitled to your own facts
- just because someone keeps saying something does not make it true

you need to read more

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

If you listen you will hear Mitt say he intends to use principles like these on tax overhaul:
- work with congress
- not lower burden on upper income individuals
- relief to middle class (making us more competitive due to this being most small businesses)
- keep it deficit neutral

Also if you read the Simpson and Bowles report you will see that the feds forgo $1.1 trillion per year (first paragraph in section 2 Tax Reform), using the math the dems like the most that is $11 trillion over 10 years. $11 trillion is more than $5 trillion ("arithmetic") so it is doable. The dems just want to negotiate it now during the election. I think Mitt is correct to just lay out the outline and the principles he'll use. This is far more than Mr 0 has said about the next 4 years.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

That is a huge blunder on the part of the moderator. She wanted to put herself into this debate and she did. Hopefully that won't happen again.

The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “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.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.” Obama employed the “act of terror” phrase a third time a day later at a campaign event in Colorado.

Please people, fact check before posting. Crowley did not admit anything of the kind.
Wednesday morning on CNN, Candy Crowley defended her moderation of Tuesday’s presidential debate -- and in particular, her on-the-spot fact-checking of Mitt Romney’s claims about President Obama’s response to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

During the debate, Romney alleged that Obama had taken weeks to describe the incident as a terrorist act. Crowley intervened, saying that the president “did in fact” call the attack an “act of terror” in his comments the following day and encouraging Romney to move on.
@ Patricia.- Really? Sharp tongued women on The View? It offends you as a woman? You stick with your 1950's p.o.v's.........The rest of us women are living in the 21st century, thank you very much!

"acts of terror" -> and then his UN Ambassador went on 5 Sunday shows with a different message, his press secretary swayed in the wind, ... take a look at the timeline

From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 09/27/2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

"certainly not convincing" -> the timeline/FACTs are and it ain't good for Mr 0!

From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 09/27/2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Quasi, you are right. Obama was NOT referring to 2002. He was referring to 9/11/2001 and the attack on the trade centers. His first lines...

"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."

Bob,

You are right, but I let it go as a slip of the fingers on the keyboard. I know and most people know that the comment was a general comment given the fact that the WH spend the next few days telling a different story.

Ron, maybe it was but Quasi was still saying something false. He said Obama didn't reference "The" 9/11. He did. Quasi can't even read the article he is posting to which has the statement in it.

you do realize that this income you're talking about was already taxed? Do you think some people should be double taxed?

Patricia - No, it has not already been taxed. Until the interest is given to you by the bank, you didn't even have it so it is not possible to have already been taxed on it.

Ron, if you have $250,000. in interest and dividend income - you are not middle class. Most people do not own that amount of stock. People in that group would put their money in more of the same - usually international funds. And that does not produce jobs in this country. If Romney wants to do something for the middleclass then he would exempt 250,000 from w-2 income.
With the type of exclusion Romney is proposing he is providing welfare to those who don't need it. Tax policy is just another name for arguing one groups self interest over an other. I am middleclass and it would be in my interest not to pay taxes on w-2 income. I would think that most people would prefer a w-2 tax break over a 1099 dividend break. I am not confusing the ideas. Maybe you just don't like the answer.
I would like to know what type of tax break people would prefer - your w-2 excluded from income or your dividends? lol

Shay,
I am sorry but that is not what was said and if you do not know it, I can't keep talking to you. Interest and dividends are 1099 income as is the interest you collect on a savings account and a checking account. The exclusion is not for interest income it is for people just like you who may make less then 250,000, not people that have 250,000 in 1099 income. My good, are you totally unwilling to get the facts before you talk. In other words, if you make less than 250,000 you would not be taxed on 1099 income, you make more you would. You are the one who did not listen to what was said.

Can you provide a source for the comment you're referencing?

What Ron is erroneously referring to is in the final moments of the debate when Candy asked a follow-up question about how the U.S. can bring back jobs from companies like Foxconn. Obama offered a very realistic answer that we won't get all low-SKILL jobs back from countries like India and China. His point was fair in that we should focus on training and educating the American workforce to be a competitive place for a diverse level of skills that would attract manufacturers. That statement was likely misconstrued to mean that he doesn't care about blue-collar jobs, when it was far from it. Of course not everyone can demand high salaries. Where that logic falls short, of course, is that our idea of low-paying is minimum wage. Foxconn's low-paying jobs take hourly minimum wage and pay that for a full day's work. I would point out that at no point did he say that he didn't 'care' about these nor did he comment that he wanted more to go off-shore. The question was in regards to bringing them back and I thought his answer was genuine and to the point: we can't bring them all back, so let's focus on the ones that we can.

Nice try JJ, and the same could be said for the way the Dems have misused the 47% comment, which was said in the context that he was not going to win their votes, it seems to me the same thing. My point remains, what are the dems saying, they want to bring back jobs as well, The jobs that they attack Bain for outsourcing were not high skill jobs were they.

Actually, Ron, your point was that Obama didn't care about these jobs. "One thing I have not seen commented upon what Obama's comment that he did not care about low paying jobs, as far as he was concerned they could go off-shore." If your point was what you stated below then I wouldn't have responded as I did. You misrepresented Obama's response and I pointed it out in a civil tone.

Regarding the 47% commentary, it seems to be grasping at straws, but I'll bite. To use actual quotes, what put people off was the following: "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them." The use of the words "victims", is enough to put anyone off and is completely dismissive and condescending. It's hard to misuse a quote that is even worse when taken in context than when taken out of it.

I watched it and I read the transcript.

You say: "Obama's comment that he did not care about low paying jobs, as far as he was concerned they could go off-shore."

What was said: "Candy, there are some jobs that are not going to come back, because they’re low-wage, low-skill jobs."

----

You're getting a lot out of that comment -- more accurately, you're reading what you want to read out of that.

now that everyone is caught up: Mr 0 sure cares about and counts low paying / part-time jobs that take his unemployment #s down, now doesn't he, hypocrite in chief! His failed record would have resulted in firing from a real CEO position.

You missed a few. This is what you get when you allow pseudonyms.

Now that we've heard from Mr Karl Weld, the self-professed expert on everything pro-Teabagger, we should all be enlightened by his latest cut & pastes. Please head back to another one of your Reading Teapublican Town Committee meetings in order to get recharged with some fresh lunatic fringe propaganda. Many Readngites are hoping that you pull papers again for Selectmen, and this time follow through, you will get trounced regardless of who you face.

if you take the time to read what is contained in his links and still think discrimination causes any gender wage gap then either you cannot read/understand or you suffer from dem dementia, I hope it is not DD but given the TB comment it appears a lost cause.

Hey John, great to hear from you again. If you have a problem with alternative arguments or points of view that you won't get from liberal talking points and sound bites then why don't you just say so. Maybe if you actually were willing to debate these issues instead of calling people names (with absolutely no substantiation) I could take you seriously. But by all means if you think that passing along an article from an English newspaper and another about studies that contradict your limited, biased viewpoint keep calling in lunatic fringe propaganda. You just prove my point when you do. BTW, what's your involvement in local government? Do you participate or do you just like to disparage the reputations and sincere intentions of others who may have a different point of view?

The hidden taxes are courtesy of our prince and princess (Harry and Nancy; "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is in it"). One of Mr 0's biggest mistakes outsourcing the bill to those 2 partisan clowns.

Shay,
Interest income is taxed as regular income and some dividends are cap gains. See line 8 under income on a return. Ordinary dividends are listed on line 9. Cap gains and other long term cap gains or short term cap gains are tax differently. For instance the sale of stock or a home. Please go back and listen to the debate and see what Romney said, he is talking about this two items for families making less than 250,000. They would be exempt from paying taxes on this items. Now if a family is living entirely on ordinary dividends and they somehow have 250,000 of income in a year then yes they would be exempt. I would venture a guess that there are not many of those people and by the way the money they used to buy these stocks was taxed once already. It is far likelier that there are many familes who work and save and will now not pay taxes. Leonardo, before you find fault with my tone you may want to look back and see that Shay was trying to lecture me as well.

Conveniently, Rmoney himself would be one of those people who lives almost entirely on income from dividend, interest and capital gains. He's worth somewhere north of $250 million, parks his money overseas, uses tax dodges in the Cayman islands and, in his own words, thinks it would be fair for him to pay $0 in taxes on that $250000 of income. Really? How is it that his income is magically less taxable than the average person who ears wages for a living?

Shay and Leonardo from the tax policy web site
"Of particular importance are details of applying the exemption of investment income (long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income) for most taxpayers with income less than threshold amounts ($200,000 for married couples, $100,000 for single returns and $150,000 for heads of households). We assume that all other income is counted first in determining whether investment income is subject to tax. Therefore, for any married couple with income from other sources above $200,000, all capital gains, dividends, and interest would continue to be subject to current tax rules.

For taxpayers with other income below the relevant threshold, the maximum exemption for investment equals the threshold minus other income. For example, a married couple with $150,000 of income from sources other than long-term gains, dividends, and interest would pay no tax on the first $50,000 of investment income and statutory tax rates on any investment income in excess of $50,000. This income would face current statutory rates—0 percent or 15 percent for long-term gains and qualified dividends and as high as 35 percent on other dividends and interest income.

Continued

Ron-

In what world do you live in in which a married couple with wages of $150,000/ year would have anything even close to $50,000/yr of investment income, let alone an excess?

Wall Street has effectively lobbied Congress to make an uneven playing field - the rich, who DO have a large amount of money earned from investments, get the breaks. Rmoney thinks it's 'fair' that he pays only 15% on his capital gains/dividends (and no SS or Medicare on it either!), while wage earners pay a significantly higher % on the money they work for. And Romney wants to stack the deck even more!

I'll give you this - Rmoney would make a great used car salesman. He says whatever needs to be said to close the deal whether he believes it or not.

Stiv,

It is not. I can not understand how people in their need to argue can miss this one. We can disagree as to the value of the plan and we can disagree with the end result and that is will it work, but we are arguing about something that is pretty basic, if you make less than 250,000 dollars interest and ordinary dividends are exempt. Now if Romney becomes your example he is not exempt because he makes more than 250,000.

You know Ron, what you are saying is NOT what Romney said in the debate - I went back and looked at the transcript. First, your cutoff number is different from what he said..maybe not surprising since Romney doesn't really have any firm ideas, he just throws out numbers to see what sticks. Secondly, he never said during the debate that income over a certain level would suddenly start paying taxes. So yes, I will give you that there is a document out there on the web that claims what you say, but I will reiterate that its details are different that what Romeny said during the debate so you can understand the confusion. Rmoney is also throwing out that everyone will be granted a deduction of$17000 or $25000 or $50000 that they can use in anyway they want but does not tell us whether or not this deduction of some amount that he can't decide on would also include the no taxes on investment money deduction. And then there is the claim by Romney that he will close loopholes and deductions to simplify the tax code but of course this investment income deduction he wants to give people is actually another loophole....oy, it's all so confusing!

he's wrong and guess what, so are you on so many levels ;)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/transcript-second-presidential-debate/#ixzz29eEBvmet

Middle-income people are going to get a tax break.

And so, in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be say everybody gets -- I'll pick a number -- $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.

But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.

If you're getting interest from a bank, if you're getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don't have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there'll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000.00 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle-class? Because under the last four years, they've been buried. And I want to help people in the middle-class.

Leonardo,
You are correct in the feeling that the tone of the campaign can be negative, but please do not exclude Obama from this. A PAC run by his former staffer ran the ad where a gentleman tried to protray Romney as responsible for the death of his wife. Almost every news organization pounded them for the factual misrepresentations and the tone. I can't think of anything more dispicable then attacking a person for the death of someone when is was clear to all before they ran the ad that is was wrong. The President has run a campaign that I my opinion is beneath the office and bears responsibility as well. As far as where his interests lie, I do not believe he is for the middle class, but is advocating class warfare.

Because non-qualified dividends and interest income would face higher statutory rates than long-term gains or qualified dividends, we assume that the former would be exempt ahead of the latter. Thus, a couple with $150,000 in other income, $40,000 in interest income, and $30,000 in qualified dividends would pay no tax on the interest income and $10,000 of the dividends but would pay tax on the remaining $20,000 of qualified dividend income.

Stiv,

I will try once more than I officially give up. Capital gains and dividends are made with money that was to some degree taxed once already, it had to earned before it could be invested. That is called the basis. The tax is on what is earned over the basis is what is taxed.. Now from above that you mis-stated. " For example, a married couple with $150,000 of income from sources other than long-term gains, dividends, and interest would pay no tax on the first $50,000 of investment income and statutory tax rates on any investment income in excess of $50,000. This income would face current statutory rates—0 percent or 15 percent for long-term gains and qualified dividends and as high as 35 percent on other dividends and interest income."
As far as the world I live in many people make less than 250,000 and have interest and dividends. I have income from stocks and bank accounts and I pay taxes on this as well as you may. If that is the case you would not. Romney and others like him would pay taxes.

WOW with friends like Bill Clinton, Mr 0 is a GONER, "IT'S NOT FIXED"! priceless!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-clinton-romneys-argument-true-were-not-fixed_654893.html

"Governor Romney's argument is, we're not fixed, so fire him and put me in," said Clinton. "It is true we're not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don't now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it's not fixed."

Vincent, let's start with one question.
Q. Do you feel safer now that you did four years ago?
And to follow, not a single politican in history (regardless of party, country, era) has kept his promises. However, look at the positives of what was done and then look at what was proposed and shot down in votes by the opposing party in congress. Take this for more than the last four years...think about it historically. If you constantly disagree with the opposition and vote against them, then is it really fair to state that they didn't do something, when in fact they tried but were thwarted.

Vincent - What was the top tax rate under the Reagan administration?

"Do you feel safer now that you did four years ago? " -> no

Why did you change the subject? the thwarted argument holds NO water during the first 2 years, there is lots that proves the tone was set in the first 2 years, you should read a bit.

Please point to one issue solved by Mr 0 where he worked with BOTh sides, built a consensus and the USA is better as a result?

exhibit A: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html

The roots of Obama's demise
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, October 25, 2010

exhibit B: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-healthcare-vote-democrats/2010/03/16/id/352913

Democratic leaders already plan to employ the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation.

exhibit C: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/24/Dems-Lie-McConnell-One-Term-President

Dems' Favorite Lie: McConnell Wanted Obama to Fail From The Start

Kevin, Mr 0 does not have a tax issue, he has a SPENDING issue.

hi, You can pretend you have no dog in this race ;) but are you the Al that posted this? "Here's why I like Obama, for the past 4 years I've had a steady well paying job in software, my wife has had equal luck in her job in the healthcare field."

"his surplus was no more his making" -> you would have a very difficult time convincing BC of that ;)

This election is about Mr 0's: 1) failed economic record 2) lack of leadership 3) poor foreign policy, moving beyond those topics is a ploy to just get 4 more years (both here and at the campaign levels).

Nothing wrong with history. The problem arises when the current president:
- does not want you to look back at the 4 most recent years of history and
- all he has available to entice you into 4 more years is class warfare, a war on woman, anyone got any of that "hope" left? all the "change" was to the detriment of the USA

Looking back at history....ha ha. Is that why the GOP has a limited rear view mirror? If the GOP wants us to support them, then they should show that GOP choices in the past are a good thing, but wait, which of their past leaders or party were invited to speak at the last convention? Let me see, Bush? Bush Sr? Powell? Rumsfeld? Cheney? Wow, I guess history should be avoided if you look beyond four year.

FYI: Mitt is running for president

Vincent:

Mr. Romney’s oft-mentioned five-point plan, which is light on specifics, is an echo of the platform that Mr. Bush ran on in 2000 — energy independence, education, expanded free trade and a get-tough stance toward China, balanced budgets and small business. It really is amazing just how much Romney’s plan is an exact copy of Bush’s, despite twelve intervening years and a vastly different economic landscape.

If anything, the comparison is unfair to Bush. After all, Bush in 2000 ran with not only Romney’s five point plan, but also a “compassionate conservative” agenda — No Child Left Behind, a faith-based initiative, immigration reform, and more. Not only does Romney have no similar agenda, there’s also a real overall policy deficit if you compare the two. Sure, on taxes there’s some similarity in that both deny the deficit-busting implications of their plans. But overall Bush just ran on far more well-developed domestic policy ideas than Romney.

If we go back all the way to the 2000 presidential campaign, we can remember that Bush described China as a "strategic competitor," that he declared that he would look to South America "not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment," and that he promised to cut taxes on small businesses. So, contra Romney, Bush was hawkish on China, supportive of South America, and receptive to the concerns of small business.

(continued)

(Bush-Lite, continued)

That Romney and Bush are using almost identical language to describe China, Latin America, and small business is not in the least bit surprising. In case we've forgotten, Bush and Romney are Republican politicians of the same generation (Bush is 66, Romney is 65), appealing to the same base, and supported by the same powerful business interests. Given their similarities, it would be surprising if Bush and Romney didn't sound the same.

Friends, if you loved Bush, you'll love Romney just as much.

I can do you one better: Mr 0 is the exact same person who ran in 2008, his plan is very similar, note the disastrous results documented above!

Well maybe the plan is a bit different "hope and change" -> "mope and blame" (aka class warfare, spend millions of $s to smear Mitt, play the war on woman card, ... you get the idea).

duh yuck yuck yuck

When a candidate's record does not support re-election he must stoop to spoofs, class warfare, ... The link above is a spoof.

I am for Romney but that's damn funny

I think the same funny ad should be for President Obama. He hasn't told us what he is going to do if elected for another 4 years.

Hey, Concerned, you're certainly much older than 16, but you STILL can't design such a Website! ;~))

Ron -

You don't even know the quote in general, you just know that it was 'bad' LOL!! There was no 'apology tour', that is a right-wing myth. And yes, I admit that Rmoney's constant lying and hard turn to the left at the first debate was a lot slicker than Obama's truthful explanations. Rmoney is a great used car salesman.

good job Ron!

go easy on him, you got the idea and he did raise you a gas bag Joe after-all; there is no trumping that gaff machine ;)

Oh my fresh off the press from the gaff-o-matic and an extra special guest, prince harry in the back, he raised his hands both times!

Biden to voters: 'How many of you know someone who has served in Iraq or Iran?'
http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-to-voters-how-many-of-you-know-someone-who-has-served-in-iraq-or-iran/article/2511125#.UIB7iaHkZ8E

@ ron- The President's quote was "guns and religion" 4 yrs. ago, and quite honestly he was right on the mark! Joe Biden's laughing during Lyin' Ryan's answers was natural. Anyone who can lie straight faced like that, right outta' the gate was absurd. Biden had to laugh- Everyone watching the debate was laughing @ Ryan. At least Biden say's what's on his mind and it's truthful.

Everybody makes gaffes but every time Romney opens his mouth his handlers must cringe: "The trees are the right height in Michigan." "Women need to get home and cook dinner." "I don't work for 47% of the country,.." On and on and on. I wonder whether he's got Alzheimers, really. He couldn't remember the word "donut" during one visit. -- As far as "laughing like a fool during the debate" Biden had to laugh to keep from strangling Lyin Ryan.

Unlike POTUS of the 57 states of America? Or the "corpse man" in NH? Or, "It was like Special Olympics".

Home prices are rising. Costs almost always go up unless the economy is shrinking. That would be deflation instead of inflation. Personally, my taxes are lower today than they were four years ago. The stock market is in much better shape and would be flourishing if Europe were stable. Unemployment is down. Bin Laden is dead. We are mostly out of Iraq. Romney wants to get rid of tax deductions that benefit the middle class.

This is life, Mary, everything goes up, in prices that is. Just look back at all the prices back in 1900, or even more recently, in 1980, 1990, or even 2000. Do you remember what happened in 2008? Probably not, or you wouldn't post such a thing. Obama may not be a genius, but he is teh President in a democracy, so by definition, he represents the people, and the people have a lot to learn.

Hear, hear Kevin

Yes Mary, I totally agree with you. If Romney is elected he will get rid of unions so we will have jobs, and then food prices will go down, oil will go down, health care down and biggest of all is rent which will surely go down. Even better Roe vs Wade will be overturned and we can once and for all stop those nasty girls from killing babies. What is even better is our taxes will go down and so will the deficit. We don't have to worry about our kids going to Iran, he will use the illegal immigrants for that. Life will just get better and better. I can hardly wait!

10/10, brilliant

the author > ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards

so there is no need to waste the time clicking on the link, unless you want a chuckle or 31 ;)

Quasi, that would be compelling except it is crap based on liberal mind sets. The very first point about Pell Grants answers with "Paul Ryan's budget plan..." Ryan is VP not Presidential candidate.
In 2, they say it isn't true and the Washington Post proved it without stating any facts.
In 3, it says he lied when he said "...oil production is down 14% this year on federal land" then the rebuttal is that yes it is down but "14% is a one year number" Isn't that what Romney said?
in 4, Romney said oil AND GAS drilling permits were cut by @50%, they then say they went from @9,000 to "over 5,000" the real numbers were 9,661 to 5,568 which is a 42.4% drop. Close enough to "about 50%" for most people.
I would go on but it is such a trash piece it is hurting my eye's to read.

even after the 2008 video showing the dear leader say: "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas -- maybe you just make some up! If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as somebody people should run away from. You make big elections about small things."

"change we need" now 4 years later it has turned into "WE NEED CHANGE"!

Do you doubt the authenticity of the video? What would Ross think?

Leonardo ,
While I disagre with you about Obama, I can almost understand your support of him. However,I am amazed that you can say you honor and trust Warren though. She has no position that is not feed her by the WH, she first started with the amount of student debt as a issue leaving off the fact that the single biggest reason to college costs outpacing inflation are inflated salaries as her own,she has created a fake war on women campaign, she claims to be fighting for the victims while she was paid by the insurance company to limit their exposure, and by the way, she could have worked pro-bono like many lawyers who fight for certain causes. The fact is she is an elistist and a stoge for the WH, if Obama does win, I wonder why we would need her in the Senate in that she would just vote the straight party line in every case. I could go on, but I do not think I have to, she is a fraud.

Unlike Obama who was going "to stop the rise of the oceans". Close Gitmo! Cut the deficit in half! Keep unemployment under 8%! ROTFLMAO!

times are a-changing, WOMAN are now in play, safe states are NOW IN PLAY, ... maybe even here in Massa-chooch ;)

Nelly,

Please enlighten me as to one thing Warren will do that will fix the world.

Ron, one thing - OK.
She will be a woman in a position of power and respect, like Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel. There are over 190 countries out there and many do not treat women very well. Leading by example works, so electing women into high office will show the rest of the world we are more than battleships and drones.

Ron Johnson,

Name one thing that any single person (who is not currently in a high position of power) can do that will change the world. (PS - it has to be legal)

Make that 'fix' the world

Nelly and Quasi,

I am not impressed with either answer, for instance say another seat in the Senate is won by a Republican, what happens then. So vote for her because she is a Democrat. Not much of an endorsement to my open-ended invitation.
As far as being a woman, to paraphrase, she is no Hillary Clinton or Sandra Day O'Connor or any number of women of both parties that I respect. So your answer seems to be vote for her she is a woman. And before you accuse me of being scared of powerful women, I am married to one, a professional with a post graduate degree with a more impressive resume than me. I stand by my assertion that Warren is a fraud and a hyprocrit. She is being told what to do and say, far from an independent and strong woman. I invite further comment.

Ron,
Brown is a nice guy with a truck. Do you even care what his opinion is on Dodd-Frank (or anything for that matter)? Who would you want in the room if you were discussing regulation reform or bankruptcy reform? Warren has relevant expertise that is really needed in Washington right now. Brown's expertise is a dime a dozen.

I would never vote for or against someone because of gender. Haven't we gotten past that?

Patricia, Why not vote based on gender? You would be amazed by how many people vote for men because they're men, or for someone because they believe in god or have a certain color skin.

Less than 20% of the Senate and Congress are women. 50% of the population are women. We need to almost triple the number of elected women in Washington just to make it fair!

That's a lot of binders :-)

Agreed Quasimodo. Warren is brilliant and a great role model for young women, daughters, granddaughters. We do not want the rethugs controlling the senate any longer. They will do anything, including screw the people of this country with the constant filibustering. Warren can get the job done well for MA. and she doesn't need to take her clothes off (Brown-Cosmo). Women have a better chance @ preserving what little rights we have now and possibly even getting the equal pay law's tougher if Warren wins. Women do not have WMP - (White Male Privilege) - We need to even out the playing field people-it is 2012 last time I checked. We are behind our counterparts in electing women. GB, Israel, India (to name a few). Many men are still afraid of powerful women in the board room- Warren 2012!

Stiv,

i am not the one who said it Nelly said it, you may want to go back and reread her comment that Warren will try to fix the world. If one person cannot and by the way I agree a Senator cannot, then this seems like a silly reason to vote for someone

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82586.html

Hillary Clinton trashes whiners
By KEVIN ROBILLARD | 10/18/12

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a new interview that she can’t stand “whining” by women who are unhappy with the work and family choices they’ve made in life and complain that they have no options.

I can see Nadine and Nelly are comfortable in a victim role, I am not. Just because I am female does not make me a victim. To me that just prolongs true equality. Look I'm a single parent and I've done it all on my own. I don't want, nor ever expected special treatment because I'm a woman, to me that is an insult. I have a brain and I use it. I really am amazed that people will vote for Warren because she's a woman since that makes it OK to NOT vote for her because of her gender. You can't have it both ways. I couldn't disagree more with Nelly and Nadine, they will always be "victims".

Nelly,
The assumption that all women are the same and have the same values would be insulting if a man said it. Women do not run for office as much as men, is fact. The reasons are many. If you use you analogy, I guess no white people should vote for the president and all Afican-Americans have to, because of color. Or I guess woman have to decide what is more important gender or color. Nelly, it is not that simple and for that I am glad. I would hope that even you after some more thought can think of other reasons to vote for EW. I am not voting for Scott Brown because he is a man. I would have voted for Hillary over Obama any day.

Nadine,
Please run for office and represent your gender. Playing fields are leveled by merit not gender or color. I am also tired of the old cliche, man are afraid of powerful women. That is just a dumb comment. I know let's just have a qouta and reserve seats in Congress for some women and some people of color and some people who are white. The bottom line is all I had to see was EW hide behid the governor at one of the press conferences in which she was questioned about her heritage to know EW was not as powerful woman. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton or Rice doing that. As far as brilliant, I am not sure about that either given the claims raised about her research for an early book and her academic career. If you want to support smart women there are so many others worthy

Not classic. Stupid.

Nelly,

Yes, and if you could actually look at the bills that she is misrepresenting his votes on, you would have to admit that all bills are really as simple as they seem at first glance.
Do you know what Crowdfunding is, and that Brown was a key player and by the way the President signed into legislation. Warren has one thing that by the way does not protect the little guy as much as you think, as many commentors are still unsure of the of the concept that the law as codified the idea that are some the banks that are too big to fail. I also found it interesting that Warren was so unlikiable that Obama could nt appoint her the the position that was in a sense created for her. The Senate run is the pay-off so that she can go to DC and vote the party line.
I guess the idea that she is a woman and that is a good reason is out the window now.
Nelly, by the way I voted for many democrats in my life as early as the late 60's and that includes Clinton twice. I just can not accept Warren, because in that in my mind, which you clearly do not agree, is a fraud and a hypocrit. I as most people do not agree with every position someone is for, I just can vote for her.

She has expertise in the most important issues of right now -- Brown doesn't.

Not sure what areas you're talking about. Sure she created another government agency to do the work the other already existing government agencies were supposed to do. And she didn't' even get that job. I agree with another poster, I believe she's hard to get along with, not politically inclined and really isn't well thought of in the beltway. Of course the dems will back her but probably don't want to have to work with her.

And, I really don't think she's as smart as people claim she is. Like someone else said, hiding behind Patrick at that press conference was one of the many reasons NOT to vote for her. A woman having to have a man answer for her was extremely disturbing to me. Ever see her in person? Unless its a staged event, she's surrounded by campaign workers.

We'll never agree I guess but that's what makes it fun, don't it?

I recently did a bit of research into Mr 0 before he got his first big boy gig, this story is old but a good read

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/225564

What Did Obama Do As A Community Organizer?
By Byron York
September 8, 2008

Obama’s professional colleagues, people like Jerry Kellman, believe his lasting accomplishment was to build an organization, the Developing Communities Project, that survived his departure. Today, DCP still exists, run out of a small Methodist church building on 95th Street, working on after-school programs, drug prevention, and voter registration. It has become, much more than it was when Obama was there, a grant-getting institution; according to tax records, about three-quarters of its funding comes from government grants, with the rest from liberal foundations like the Woods Fund, on whose board Obama sat from 1993 to 2002.

cont ...

Has any of that brought about the change Obama spoke of back in 1985? Not in any large sense. But if Obama doesn’t have much to show for his years as an organizer, it’s fair to say that many of the people he touched revere him deeply. Remember what Loretta Augustine-Herron said: Obama had such a powerful presence that he made her believe he could do the job, even though there was little in his résumé to suggest he could. Does that sound familiar to anyone who has watched the Obama campaign? When hope is the product, Obama can sell it with the best of them.

When he left for law school, Obama wondered what he had accomplished as an organizer. He certainly had some achievements, but he did not — perhaps could not — concede that there might be something wrong with his approach to Chicago’s problems. Instead of questioning his own premises, he concluded that he simply needed more power to get the job done. So he made plans to run for political office. And in each successive office, he has concluded that he did not have enough power to get the job done, so now he is running for the most powerful office in the land.

And what if he gets it? He’ll be the biggest, strongest organizer in the world. He’ll dazzle the country with his message of hope and possibility. But we shouldn’t expect much to actually get done.

spot on in my eyes!

Michael, I would do the same thing with the Presidential race. Harvard, 12 years in various Senate seats, 4 years as President managing 2 wars and a financial crisis. Romney wouldn't stand a chance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/documents-show-stevens-worried-about-libya-security-threats-al-qaeda-before/

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack

Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months' time, "Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape." He added, "The individual incidents have been organized," a function of "the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes."

"Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity," Stevens cabled. "What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks." His final comment on the two-page document was: "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."

Most of the people in the military (boots on the ground and veterans) are supporting the POTUS! Did you not know that fact? Oh my goodness, truly a lot of falsehoods going around. Romney will have our young men and women in Iran if he's elected. 10 years of war isn't enough? We will suffer for our acts. War is terrorism with a bigger budget! Support all our troops-Bring'em home now!Obama 2012!

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-romney-military-vote/2012/10/08/id/459090

Military Poll: Romney Creams Obama by 40 Percentage Points
Monday, 08 Oct 2012 12:30 PM
By Newsmax Wires

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney may be nearly tied among voters as a whole, but among military members, the former Massachusetts governor is obliterating the president, 66 percent to 26 percent, according to a new poll from the Military Times.

The American people will not stand being told lies, Mr 0's ship sinks on Monday.

I agree. I can not wait until we go into Iran. That will get jobs going. Do you think Congress will go along with Romney though?

Right kate, will you be the first to enlist to go into Iran and take out the ayatollahs?

Leo,

Did he have anywhere else to go but up? And he did what to improve the situation? If you can tell me how spending in a time of economic crisis helps, I am an open minded person. If you can explain to me that I am better off with a national health plan, I am all ears. If you can tell me that I am safer with a nuclear Iran, then you are a better salesman than Romney ever was. He should have addressed what challenges he faced, rather than to ignore them and re-direct with newly created issues.

kate lipton, you say "so now we will just go into Iran. Afterall the past two wars have not hurt us one bit." I have to LOL at your statement, spending trillions of dollars of borrowed money in foreign conflicts, losing thousands of soldiers in combat, and having tens of thousands of soldiers maimed for life and suffering PTSD are no big deal to this country, right? And yet, you still want this country to go to war with Iran? WTF is wrong with you?

In all honesty I think kate lipton is being facetious - seriously, no person is that whacko
I think her humor is funny, just imagine "Romneyland".................She's nailed it perfectly!. (Even for dogs)

Ok kate, if you believe in that, then I'll just leave it at that.

kate, I'm sorry for cussing at you, because I was very emotional when I read your post where you so freely and casually mentioned that we ought to go to war against Iran. Unlike you, I believe that use of military force is of last resort in our foreign policy, and the GOP has never subscribed to that philosophy. If voting for Obama in '08 makes me a Liberal, so be it, and I stand by that vote.

when push comes to shove: a dog on the roof is better then a dog in the tummy, even my 9 year olds agree ;)

May Romney pamper you, Miss Lipton, if he is your heartfelt choice. I just hope you don't eat at Mexico Lindo before you go.

uncle Joe?

Biden to voters: 'How many of you know someone who has served in Iraq or Iran?'
http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-to-voters-how-many-of-you-know-someone-who-has-served-in-iraq-or-iran/article/2511125#.UIB7iaHkZ8E

I could not agree with you more. I alot of time reviewing Governor Romney's arguments and as I have been saying all night I am with him. I didn't hear Obama say that he was going to close the deficit without raising taxes. We can even afford a war according to Mr. Romney. Now those are big issues. Who would the average person choose? You know I am so fired up about these issues that I would like to join a local Republican Committee. I would have so much to talk about with people who would really understand these big issues.

12:10 am on Sunday, October 21, 2012

I could not agree with you more. I took alot of time reviewing Governor Romney's arguments and as I have been saying all night I am with him. I didn't hear Obama say that he was going to close the deficit without raising taxes. We can even afford a war according to Mr. Romney. Now those are big issues. Who would the average person choose? You know I am so fired up about these issues that I would like to join a local Republican Committee. I would have so much to talk about with people who would really understand these big issues.

While Utah is a majority-Republican state, its capital city of Salt Lake is considered largely left-leaning.

Mr. Romney is expected to win the state by a wide margin this year, and no Democrat has carried Utah since then-President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

Read more: Utah newspaper endorses Obama over Romney - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/oct/20/utah-newspaper-endorses-obama-over-romney/#ixzz29wBkkkOX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Leonardo you post some very interesting comments. I recently read "The Political Brain". The author demonstrates how people by voting on emotion rather than reason end up voting against their own self interest. I highly recommend it for someone of your caliber. Just remember that when you are dealing with people with emotional blinders on they just can not process reason. What is going on in this country reminds me of the Pied Piper.

it is a 5 point plan, do some research. Big Bird has been replaced by "binders". things move fast ;)

Hi Kate,

Gov. Romney has repeatedly said that when elected, his bold economic plans will create 12 million new jobs over his first four years.

But what our former governor neglects to say is that two separate non-partisan forecasts predict that 9-12 million new jobs will be created in the same span REGARDLESS of who is elected. This is one of the fundamental reasons why Romney hasn't provided any specifics. He would likely continue the same policies as Obama, which nearly every independent, non-partisan analysis deemed as successful -- despite the blatant Republican foot-dragging in Congress.

Here are the actual forecasts:
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2012-10-09-US-Macro-Outlook-Slow-and-Steady-Isnt-Enough.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43542

Mike: I appreciate the links. Neither one states 12 million jobs over the next 4 years, did I miss something? I see in the range of ~ 7 million

"REGARDLESS of who is elected"
-> that is where you start to get into trouble, the Zandi doc (your first link) is a huge repudiation of Mr 0, his policies, his failed leadership, his economic record, ... it is a total failure due to HIS my way or the highway attitude from day one (the stimulus package) day 2 (Mr 0-care) ...

"He would likely continue the same policies as Obama, which nearly every independent, non-partisan analysis deemed as successful"
-> WOW x 2

you need to read more and be honest

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

If you listen you will hear Mitt say he intends to use principles like these on tax overhaul:
- work with congress
- not lower burden on upper income individuals
- relief to middle class (making us more competitive due to this being most small businesses)
- keep it deficit neutral

Also if you read the Simpson and Bowles report you will see that the feds forgo $1.1 trillion per year (first paragraph in section 2 Tax Reform), using the math the dems like the most that is $11 trillion over 10 years. $11 trillion is more than $5 trillion ("arithmetic") so it is doable. The dems just want to negotiate it now during the election. I think Mitt is correct to just lay out the outline and the principles he'll use. This is far more than Mr 0 has said about the next 4 years.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Hi Vincent, re: 12 million new jobs...Yes, you did miss something, as both estimates -- even the Zandi one -- call for hiring to go north of 250,000 jobs per month sometime in 2013. Multiply that by a 48 month term, and that's where Romney got his number.

I included the Zandi analysis for balance. While you see it as a "repudiation" of the past policies, it can also be viewed through a non-partisan lens. It's a pretty fair analysis that cites political instability and uncertainty as a main driver of economic uncertainty.

And Vincent, posting Romney's talking points is an almost comical reinforcement of the argument that he's isn't saying anything specific. Can you name one tax loophole that Romney has said he will close to raise revenue?

ya, Mitt's talking points so I guess you have nuthin, I wrote the words myself, I listen, I understand and can write ;)

I think Zandi may indicate a bit more jobs then I first stated but clearly not 250k per moth the whole time.

Given the Zandi repudiation (see below) it is foolish to think the next 4 years would be different under the same failed leader.

- Economic growth remains near a lackluster 2%.
- September's drop in the jobless rate overstates the improvement in the job market, but it is slowly improving.
- The pace of job creation has remained fairly steady at around 150,000 per month since job growth resumed in 2010.
- Hiring remains slow in part because real estate is still depressed but mostly because businesses are uncertain about the future of fiscal policy.
- Growth will pick up late in 2013, assuming policymakers address fiscal issues in a reasonable way.

WHO failed to lead on the fiscal issues, debt reduction, ... Mr 0!

on loopholes: Mitt does not subscribe to the "my way or the highway" mentality that doomed Mr 0 from day one.

Mr 0's only hope -> Flashback: Obama: "You Make a Big Election About Small Things ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18lXQDGwpg

"If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas -- maybe you just make some up! If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as somebody people should run away from. You make big elections about small things."

hear hear

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/19/163282550/salt-lake-tribune-endorses-obama-put-off-by-too-many-mitts

For more than a century, the Tribune has been perceived as the left-leaning, non-Mormon — sometimes anti-Mormon — daily newspaper in a Democratic city in a Mormon-dominated state.

The Tribune has endorsed Republicans from time to time, but it also endorsed Obama in 2008.

Thank You Leon well appreciated. LOL

Hi Kate,

The governor is cutting taxes because he's expected to. What's worrisome is that he won't say which deductions he might eliminate to achieve the revenue his budget calls for.

Your friend is right about the obstructionist Congress. Congress has blocked most of Obama's proposed economic policy initiatives; first by frequent filibusters in the Senate from 2009-2010 (the most in history) then by procedural delays in the House when Republicans got the majority in 2010. The only people hurt by this were the voters.

The pipeline issue is a lot of hot air on both sides. Most of the pipeline already exists, but the part in question was originally routed through sensitive watershed. That was changed. But it's also true that most of the oil destined for the Gulf is for export, so it's not going to affect our gas prices.

Leonardo,
I appreciate the sentiment and yes, while we can all get a little agitated, on occasion, you seem to be able to at least listen. I am sure we will engage again tomorrow.

Saul, not to revive long dead civics lessons, but before filibuster and cloture reform in 2010, it only took a handful of filibustering Senators to block legislation -- despite a Democratic majority. The rules have existed since the founding of the republic to prevent a "tyranny of the majority," which is why the Senate of the 111th Congress had the most number of filibusters ever. So, by any measure, the Republicans were intentionally obstructionist from 2009-2010. They would argue that they were doing it for noble purposes; others would say they were doing it to prevent Obama from gaining any traction.

Remember that with the economy struggling to its feet, with jobs legislation and other reforms stagnating in Congress, the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said his party's "single most important job" was to defeat Obama in 2012.

Not to get people working again.
Not to reform entitlements.
Not to bolster business.

The main priority was to throw a wrench into the wheels of government to give Obama a rougher road to re-election. That said volumes about the party...

Mike, Obama's 4 budgets have gone down in the Senate something like 394-0. His "jobs" bill was defeated by Democrats voting against it then joining with Republican's to pass the good parts. His HC bill forced companies to file 1099's for every expenditure over $600 (what that has to do with HC is beyond ANYONE!). Pelosi famously stated "you have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"! HUH? And you question why Republican's and Blue Dog Democrats have put the brakes on this run away disaster?
The House and Senate are supposed to exert checks and balances on the WH. When the WH goes off and tries to pass legislation that will hurt jobs, it is their legal and moral duty to filibuster and anything else legally that they can do to stop the bad legislation.
While the economy was struggling to regain it's footing the Democrats rammed through HC reform which hurt jobs and the economy. They took their eye off the ball and jumped the shark. They went for social engineering instead of responsible legislating.

Hi Bob, I've seen that vote tally quoted before and it's a nifty bit of misinformation. Here's a bit more background: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

Your point about health care already hurting jobs and the economy is a bit of odd fortune telling since most of the provisions haven't gone into effect.

Cheers!

Mike, those were votes to take up his budget in the Senate. All went down in flames. 4 years and zero budgets. It is over 1000 days since the country had a budget. No problem, it's just in the Constitution.
The HC bill has been in affect in pieces since it was passed. Look at all the waivers they have been passing out to their union buddies.

the Zandi doc (Mike's first link) is a huge repudiation of Mr 0, his policies, his failed leadership, his economic record, ... it is a total failure due to HIS "my way or the highway" attitude from day one (the stimulus package) day 2 (Mr 0-care) ...

yes, the country sent a message after Mr 0's first 2 years, he made his bed

you should not take anyone's word on all of this, you should read

exhibit A: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html

The roots of Obama's demise
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, October 25, 2010

exhibit B: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-healthcare-vote-democrats/2010/03/16/id/352913

Democratic leaders already plan to employ the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation.

exhibit C: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/24/Dems-Lie-McConnell-One-Term-President

Dems' Favorite Lie: McConnell Wanted Obama to Fail From The Start

Kate, the "no new taxes" pledge was not all to Norquist. That is a strawman the Democrats use to fog the argument. In fact President Obama said "the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession". He then tried to gin his base and propose taxes on only the wealthy knowing they would not pass. It was his out with the base and frankly the epitome of playing politics. Read all points and decide for yourself what is the best.

Bob, actually that's not quite true.

Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge is bad policy at its worst. It's a bludgeon to try to force legislators into a litmus test of willingness to tax. But it also counts things such as sunsetting tax cuts as tax increases, so that any legislators that are considering letting the Bush-era cuts elapse without renewal (which is why they contained a sunset provision to begin with!) is branded as a tax raiser. It's silly.

Romney refused to sign the pledge in 2002, noting that he wouldn't be restricted by a pice of paper and would need flexibility to govern. (So as governor, he didn't raise taxes..but raised fees and cut local aid to towns so that they would raise property taxes and other fees.)

By 2007, he flip-flopped and caved in to Norquist.

YES, a message was sent in 2010 as a result of Mr 0's actions. Did you read the links? did I suggest you take NO ONEs word and do a bit of reading? you only hear what you want to hear, are you sure you are not among the "the average person does not know what is going on")? good luck.

Mike it is true. Any raise in taxes is a tax increase. Norquist was a strawman that many refused to rightfully sign up for. The fact is letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax raise.

Saul, actually....the midterm elections proved that people are far less smart than we think. Some of our less, um, savvy neighbors in the south and midwest responded to the election of a "Muslim communist from Kenya" by suddenly deciding that government was EVIL and BAD and must be changed at any cost, especially to common sense. Stir in a good bit of racial animus and general fear and --poof! -- the Tea Party arrives.

Right-wing sheep are just are easy to fleece as left-wing sheep.

yup, Mike thinks Mr 0 is going to lose so he pulls the best dem card, dem dementia to the max!

"why high income people should get additional tax breaks at the expense of people like me"

Washington does not have a tax problem, Washington has a SPENDING problem! Look into how much $ the Buffet rule would generate.

If YOU listen you will hear Mr 0 say "I think we should take some of the $ we are saving on the wars and use it to build here at home".

Question: sound good, you on board, full steam ahead?

Reality: the $ we'll save not fighting the wars is $ we do not have, it would have been borrowed $!

How is that for a "sucker punch"?

so vinny, what you are saying is you are ok with all this spending, as ong as it doesn't happen in this country? or it's ok if it enriches halliburton? That's not patriotic.

halliburton -> WOW, dem dementia, I am sorry for you

given you statements you are not being objective, you know how you intend to vote so why the guise?

right back at you Vin. Why the guise?

there is no guise on my part, I shared my findings and links for kate to read on her own, if you can read you should see above I suggested she take no ones word and read

what do you have to offer except try to score a gotcha moment? oh wait it is halliburton -> REALLY?

WOW, happy reading

Mr 0 was: mean, petulant, not likeable, ...

Mitt-mentum continues!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6URuvgL2CKA

Dean Reynolds held a focus group in Ohio on CBS News, which Mitt Romney won with a clear majority (October 23, 2012).

How could anyone in our military or any parent of anyone serving in our military vote for Obama after what we've learned in the past 8 weeks, largely due to hard work and professional journalism of Fox News. CBS is embarrassed due to their unprofessionalism. They should be investigated!

This from another parent who's son lost his life in Benghazi. Goes unreported by the Obama re-election committee (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN).
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov/02/tp-families-differ-on-us-response/

This administration should graciously walk away. If they can't represent their office professionally get out!