Romney definitely one

Agreed... Romney won and Obama looked desperate to land haymakers, which he never did get done... And in a poll considering all three debates, Romney is the winner 49% to 41%...

Romney won

Romney won

I agree. I think Obama "won" the debate by a slight margin but didn't do himself any favors with the middle. It will be interesting.

LOL snarkiness John McCains comment. Why is it no metion of how snarky Palin was when she ran for VP. or is that ok since it was a republican being snarky against Obama then.. like keeping him in the cross hairs etc.

John McCain, today on MSNBC: "Frankly, I don't understand why the president wants to take these kind of cheap shots - bayonets and horses, what's that all about? You know, when I debated then-Senator Obama I didn't criticize or belittle his lack of experience on national security issues. And he seemed to take these kind of cheap shots. ... I kind of resent it."

John McCain, during the first presidential debate, on Sept. 26, 2008, at Ole Miss: "I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment. And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas ..."

Guess McCain has a case of Romnesia as well.......

Who cares about the VP, Patricia?

Stiv - I fail to see how what McCain said can be construed as a cheap shot. Please explain it to us all.

It doesn't seem to me that his comments were delivered as if he was speaking to a 5 year old, like Obama did last night ("we have these ships called aircraft carriers – planes can land on them, and submarines, - they go under the water")

Tewks:

McCain today: "You know, when I debated then-Senator Obama I didn't criticize or belittle his lack of experience on national security issues."

McCain in 2008:" "I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment. And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas

What MCCain just said today is a lie. He did in fact belittle and criticize Obama for perceived lack of experience on National Security issues in 2008, as shown by the quotes above. Get it?

No Stiv, I don't get it. Nothing in those statements suggests McCain was belittling Obama. Try again.

Note to Tewks:

You do know that the words contained inside a " " is a quote, right? That the words 'belittle' and 'cheap shots' were in quotes from McCain himself, not me, right? If you don't understand that the two quoted statements from McCain are in direct conflict with each other then I suggest that you need a remedial course in English Comprehension.

Yes, Stiv, I do understand what a quote is. What I do not understand is what part of McCain's quote is belittling to Obama.

Here. I'll present McCain's quote from 2008. Kindly point out what part of it is belittling to Obama.

"I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment. And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas ..."

Tewks-

Please explain the McCain quote from yesterday where he claimed that he did not criticize Obama's percieved lack of experince on National security issues during their debate in 2008.

"I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas "

That is both belittling and criticizing. McCain denied his own quote yesterday. NOW do you 'get it'?

Barely a criticism. McCain was merely stating that Obama had no experience. It was certainly not belittling. And it was no way NEAR as bad as Obama was last night with his silly remarks about horses, bayonets, submarines, and Battleship.

Tewks-

Amusing that you don't even try to refute my observation that McCain lied in the quote from yesterday and instead try to pivot the discussion to another topic.

Huh? It seems your reading skills and/or memory are as bad as your spelling abilities.

Tewks-

You are unable to refute my observation that McCain lied in his MSNBC interview, so you stoop to cheap personal attacks. So sad......

I was merely providing a real example of belittling, by pointing out how unintelligent you are.

And Obama was so happy he gave another 500 Million to a solar company that can now afford to move its operations to China... HAHA

that's what america needs, republicans to be done...then we can move on to the 21st century, inclusive, tolerant, supporting, successful and free. I'm weary of the religious zealotry of the far right american taliban. Be gone!

^^ posted in wrong thread by accident.

Sharon keep repeating it and it still won't be true. Romney has nothing to do with Bain and their decision on Sensata. BUT like Jeffery Immelt and GE, the Bain heads today re big Obama supporters and registered Democrats. I bet Obama is wishing he could give them our money for their support!

Sharon, just a comment on one of your thoughts. Lacking necessary experience...everyone lacks it until they are president. Obama certainly lacked experience in everything until he became president. If I remember correctly (and prob not) he was a civic community organizer. That doesn't seem like too much foreign experience. Foreign and international relations are something you mostly get on the job.

Lacks experience? What experience does Obama have? Community Leader? Really???

Well, he has been president for the last 4 years, so I would say he has experience. Granted, he didn't have any 4 years ago, but he does now.

Oh well, you are just another racist aren't you? You might not know it but thinking that Our President is a case of Affirmative Action shows your true colors and what kind of a person you are.

I agree, that comment seemed so childish and unpresidential

... and Mike's all "What do you mean we don't have horses or bayonets anymore?!?!? We use them at our confederate re-enactions ALL THE TIME!!!"

Marines still use bayonets...

No, Marines still have bayonets. Not much hand-to-hand happening these days, guys.

Really, Diana? Have you been in a war zone? There is a lot more hand to hand than you think.

Iron Mike, you are a breath of fresh air!

On another note, we have gone on and on about Romney vs. Obama, and I think by this time everybody knows who they will be voting for. Could we have a discussion about the three ballot questions, or is that on another thread?

Ok people if American's are supposed to be special and awesome let's at least not be so lazy as to misquote something that was printed ON THE SAME PAGE. LOL. So much for American quality..

Hey, everyone commenting on Iron Mike's comment, get it right - here are the actual words from the transcript "we also have fewer horses and bayonets." He didn't say "...we don't use horses or bayonets anymore."

So you are arguing semantics on a misquote by this churlish, childish, race baiting clown. Hey Mike, move to a Red State and die happy. The rest of you, seriously sharpen up. Like bayonet sharp. Gosh you are not interested in anything but fighting are you? Words and meaning? psahw! I'm too busy clownin'!

A comment on this article was deleted for language that violated our Terms of Use (even if the comment put those words in other people's mouths). Also: Godwin's law.

Daniel DeMaina, i wish i could have seen his comment. But the fact Godwin was invoked is no surprise.

Honestly the people who claim to speak for quality and maturity in this Republic are mere shadows of what they project. I'll be honest, sometimes I do just try to get their goat. But if left unchallenged they just whip themselves into a back-patting feeding frenzy. And if left unchecked that stuff begins to assume an air of legitimacy.

I still remember the days of "Irish need not apply" (and Italians too). These guys are no better, for all their protestations to the contrary. One thing I learned from working security at banks, the ones crowing about thievery (or cheating, racism, etc) are the ones preoccupied with it.

Thanks for your moderation - in all senses of the word.

PS - Mike I saw you in town yesterday. You look like you could use a vacation. Take it easy, you seem stressed. i mean that from one old timer to another. You can't match these kids ounce for ounce with your energy anymore. The sooner you accept it the more at peace you might be. God bless.

Wally, I have this feeling that you would rather most Americans remain illiterates doing menial jobs, all working like indentured servants. It is a shame to hear some of the selfish comments being made by people who feel others do not have a right to what they have (including a good education). We are the laughing stock of the rest of the world when it comes to the way we work. Americans are the most hardworking people in the free world but we have been made to feel that is the only way to go. It's like reversed slavery, a horrible vicious cycle. The rest of the world would do anything for a good education for their citizenry, apparently not us. That is why we are # twenty something in the world when it comes to education. We need a leader who has the required morals, who will not send our kids to wars that his kids will be shielded from, who did not call for war and then ran off to France till the war was over. We need a leader who is not too rich that he does not know our pains. God bless America!

He's a MUCH NICER guy than Obama Steve, - but then that doesn't take much.

Obama's 'warmth' is all on the surface. Last night we saw what an angry, petty man he really is! 13 Days!

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!

yea we need game-show MItt and his nice 1950's Donna Reed hair tonic in the white house, remember it's "white" house...if Romney win's enjoy seeing the dismantling of freedom, religious and otherwise in favor of the far right american taliban...where's a woman's womb is state property and free speech is only for the private school elite.

Is it 4:20 already??

Romney, presidential? I would say he is royal, and that's the problem.

Wait the Presidency " is not a learn while you earn process"? Nobody can know what its like to be president until they are President. Ask the hard Left Obama what he thinks after seeing the national security issues from the inside out. You think the Senator Obama would pledge to create kill lists, take out American Citizens abroad and use drones anywhere in the middle east and Africa where someone even mentioned the word Al Qaeda? Yeah, thought not. Continue the Bush Tax cuts? Nope. But he did.

Romney's having been a hedge fund/liquidator entrepreneur is no qualification for stewarding a government that is answerable to its people. It's actually quite the opposite. But again, no experience compares with being president...except maybe having been it for the prior 4 years. Which is why America defaults to the incumbent, generally. Of course the GOP had the last failed incumbent - he was stupid enough to raise taxes to try to work with the other party and address the deficit. Guess they won't make that mistake again (no matter what Mitt & Paul say).

Romney is presidential????????? are you kidding me? he is condescending, snarky, stuck-up, boorish jerk who shouldn't have been elected mayor nevermind governor and certainly not president !?!?!?!

take a look at the polls before and after the first debate shellacking, the first debate torched ~ $100 million Mr 0 spent painting Mitt as you commented, now Mr 0 continues his small ball campaign (binders, big bird, ...) but many eyes have been opened ;o

TRANSCRIPT: Mitt Romney Delivers Speech on the Economy
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/26/transcript-mitt-romney-delivers-speech-on-the-economy/

President Obama frequently reminds us that he inherited a troubled economy. But a troubled economy is not all that President Obama inherited. He inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth. He inherited the most productive and innovative nation in history. He inherited the largest economy in the world. And he inherited a people who have always risen to the occasion, regardless of the challenges they faced, so long as we have been led by men and women who have brought us together, called on our patriotism, and guided the nation with vision and conviction.

Despite all that he inherited, President Obama did not repair our economy, he did not save Medicare and Social Security, he did not tame the spending and borrowing, he did not reach across the aisle to bring us together. Nor did he stand up to China’s trade practices, or deliver on his promise to re-make our relations with the Muslim world, where anti-American extremism is on the rise.

What he inherited wasn’t the only problem; what he did with what he inherited made the problem worse.

Once again, Diana has soiled a good message board with useless remarks...

Diana, you are a racist!
To most of us it means competent, honest and Patriotic American. One who won't tell us it is raining as they pee on our leg like Obama with Libya. 7 HOURS that attack was going on and they watched most of it by drone! 7 HOURS! With rapid deployment troops an hour away!

wow Diana, bitter much?

Why would I be bitter? My guy won.

You're bitter in your "white guy with good hair" comment and your tone. And the juvenile knee-jerk response of "my guy won"...I didn't realize he was your guy, are you dating? Flippant comments do no one any good. That's what I mean by my 'bitter' comment.

Flippancy is really its own reward. I mean good lord, am I meant to take you people seriously?

I missed the replies where Bob, webmom, et al called out Iron Mike for his comment above where he called President Obama 'a case of Affirmative Action'.

Bob,

You're badly miss-informed once more. 1) where were our rapid deployment troups located, which cold have intervene? and 2) from where would have a drone come from, or it just happened to be flying by at that moment? From what base?

You had the gall to call my remarks on immigrants racist? Hypocrite. Hey Chris, why is Diana's remark about 'white guy with good hair' still here? Practice what you preach, Chris! Show some stones for a change!

Diana is implying that other people may have racist considerations in the voting booth but I hardly see how that's racist.

Quasi, you are again misinformed. We have Rapid Deployment troops in Italy which is @ 1 hour from Benghazi. NATO also has Rapid Deployment troops in Italy and I believe Greece. I don't know where the drone was stationed maybe in Italy too. But the administration said it was flying overhead and they watched the attack. One report said they had other air craft in the area as well.

"They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action."

Diana, shame on you. You forgot "Rich".

Chris, For 4 years when ever anyone disagreed with President Obama they pulled out the race card. To say our idea of a President is a "White Guy with Good Hair" is a racist statement. Many on the right would vote for Alan West, Herman Cain and Condi Rice (my personal favorite)!
This President and his followers have taken race relations in this country back 30 years! We abide by MLK's vision of judging a person on the content of their character not on the color of their skin.

Well put Diana!

Well, what do you expect when you equate "presidential" with something like "looks"?

I prefer a President to ACT Presidential. I could care less what s/he looks like.

Does Y'all mean no class now Red Sox- talk about being racist -you are a bigot ! people do speak like that in this country -- they aren't all snobs who think they are better than everybody else which, by the way, is how MITTWIT thinks of himself

Exactly how is one to respond when someone lies in front of a national audience? Be nice to them and not respond?

In last night's debate, Romney again made the same claim that he made earlier in a campaign speech: "The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines."

There's one particularly gaping hole in Mitt's claim, but it can be easily explained by simply noting that Mitt Romney is a huge liar:

"The current level of ships, 285 in fiscal 2011, is actually not even the lowest since 1916. The historical list shows that the lowest ship force was reached during the Bush administration, when the number of ships fell to 278 in 2007. Given the change over time in the composition of the naval force, that probably is the most relevant comparison — and the trend line is up."

Even if you go with the obvious Mitt logic that one 1916 rowboat equals one 2012 aircraft carrier, the core premise isn't even right. The number of ships in the fleet has increased, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, and is increasing further. No, it's not increasing by 15 boats per year just because Mitt Romney wants them but that's because austerity and deficits and all that other stuff. (Just kidding: Everyone knows austerity and deficits do not apply to military spending.)

Mitt was told previously that his claim is a lie but he repeats it anyway.

Well, yeah, that's his thing. He won't let his campaign be dictated by fact checkers!

Stiv,

What do you say about Obama statement about troop in Iraq. Just as we can disagree we can do it without a sacastic tone. Would you then say Obama is a huge liar, or does he get to skate with his "truth". LIke I said, partisans can see it only one way, and if it is yours, the truth does not matter.

like when Dick Cheney uttered the phrase "go F__K yourself" in the senate? You mean that kind of rudeness, disrespect and arrogance?

How about with facts presented in a reasoned way, I guess that may be too much to expect from the leader of the free world. I am sure when talking to foreign leaders they on occasion make mis-statements or misrepresent "facts" as we may seem them. I guess the proper response is to be sarcastic and snide. He was not indignent, he was petty. You have your opinion, I have mine. We will never agree

But Stiv, Mitt was right in that we need three new subs (nuclear, of course) to defend against the Somali Navy.

The proper response is to treat people who use scare quotes around the word facts with all requisite contempt.

The man has a sense of humor. The comments here are far more "rude and petty" than anything said in the debates. Seriously? This is how people choose who to vote for?

ChristyM - Nobody has a sense of humor when it comes to politics anymore. ;)

I laughed when he said that, I thought it was funny, too. But when it's at the expense of "your party", it becomes "rude" and "petty".

I wish politics could be an area where people just stepped back a second and saw everything on both sides with objective clarity. <--- and I'm not nearly that Pollyanna-ish IRL

Ron, YOU are the one who brought up the claim that Obama was petty and rude and sarcastic [during the 'Navy size' segment of the debate]. Since Romney was trying to paint the President as weak on foreign policy and defense by repeating a preciously debunked lie, Obama had every right to respond indignantly.

We can go back on forth on how many mis-statements each candidate made during the debate, but you are the one who started this thread with the claim that Obama was petty/rude/sarcastiv. I find it amusing that you refuse to address my replies on this point.

what are you referring to on women's rights? what specifically are you referring to?

umm, like the republican platform, the "mystery science" of elusive enzymes that ward of sperm from "legitimate' rape, that kind of thinking...

ya, YOU don't need not stinking facts ;)

on drones over Libya

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack/

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

My mother would be extremely pround that she raised me right, as demonstrated by the fact that I will be voting for the candidate that cares for 100% of Americans (as opposed to the candidate that only cares for 53% of them).

I will admit it Mitt was wrong on the 47% because THEY ARE NOW IN PLAY!

Mitt-mentum baby!!!!

sorry, my mistake.

The last paragraph should say Deval who WANTS to reward

Not to be outdone, a long comes Deval, who wants to reward illegal aliens with free tuition and a few other perks. Kinda like payback to Romney for giving it to the smart kids, he turns around and awards non citizens, who are actually breaking the law..

Obama lies as well and like many other comments, where was it ever said that Romney said he would ask permission. I am so happy you have raised the level of discourse, or is that too big a word. See you comment deserved nothing but derision.
And by the way, the previous Democrat, Clinton, may have been the biggest liar of all and was impeached as a result.

"Commander in chef." Classic! Let's hope that's Obama's new title come January 21st!

Dave,

Where was it ever said that Romney was claiming anything of the sort. Where was he misleading anyone. You did say that Romney increased fees "The other thing he didn't say was that during his term as governor, fees increased by more than 4 times today's current tuition cost" were you talking about college fees or all fees in the state. Either way, my statement stands. I guess it was too much to expect you to admit you are wrong.

He does have MA wrapped up ... this state is all the way Dem, so why would he bother? However, I agree that he is arrogant, that he is patronizing, that he fudges the truth (as do most politicians), and that he offers nothing but his past years of inexperience and misguided judgements overall. His foreign policies are questionable, his domestic policies are intolerable, his constant reference to "rich" people in a $250,000/year bracket is ridiculous nonsense in this day and age, and his lack of understanding that we must continue to maintain military prominence during this time of constant fear of terror just blows my mind. Try as he may, he is simply inept and not suited to the job. As far as who won the debate, neither/nor ... it was a debate, tales told and disrupted and that's what debates generally are. Romney may have miss stated the naval ship issue, we probably have plenty, but just how old are they? Obama addressing the issue as though tutoring a child further informed me of his arrogance. Having a strong military is important not only for our credibility throughout the world but it also ensures employment, which is a primary focus at present. There is a lot to be desired in both of these men, to be sure, but I for one have had enough of the present situation and am ready for a new beginning and a renewal of respect for our nation. We are one of a kind, let's try to keep it that way.

Ron, both you and Tewks could use a course in basic comprehension. Go back and read the McCain discussion again. The point about his comments is not that they are offensive - I don't think they were nor did I ever say so. The point is that he claimed yesterday to have never criticized or belittled Obama's lack of experience on national security issues. Except as you just quoted above, he did exactly that during the 2008 Presidential debates.

Well, well..........look what just popped up.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/23/mitt-romney-tuition-free-ride-covers-only-fraction-college-costs-originally-favored-white-suburban-students/rwD9Mg6ZFawNu7mSCf7MzK/story.html

Dave,
wrong,
Stiv,
wrong,
My point stands, you both absolutely refuse to admit it and I feel sorry for both of you.
Stiv you argued that McCain's statements were belittling, I claimed that you have adopted a double standard. I found as well as most people that his statements have an element of truth. Obama's demeanor and comments were sarcastic and meant to be so.

Dave,

I do not think Romney in any way implied that tuition was the only cost of attending school and everyone knows that is the case anyway, We all know there are fees and room and board. We also know that tuition as well as all fees for college have continued to increase since 2007. Your darling EW tried to make a point about this early in her campaign until she decided to abandon it because to some degree bloated salaries such as hers contribute to the cost. And by the way this applies to state schools as well.
The point again Dave was the comment by Romney was not about cost of college but how he supported good students in HS. You may not care if you kid gets a scholarship that covers tuition and saves some money, but I am sure some people are happy to save about 8,000.

Ron,

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have not argued that McCain's comments are offensive - what I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge is that _MCain_ claimed to have never criticized or belittled Obama's lack of experience on national security issues. Except as you quoted above, he did exactly that during the 2008 Presidential debates. You keep trying to argue a point I never tried to make, which is sad. It is I who feels sorry for you.

No Ron, I am not wrong, and I most certainly do not need you feeling sorry for me. Please don't trouble yourself.

"I do not think Romney in any way implied that tuition was the only cost of attending school and everyone knows that is the case anyway." I didn't say he did. What he tried to do was give the impression that he somehow singlehandedly made it possible for those who accepted the scholarship to go to college, which is hogwash. And no, not everyone knows that tuition at UMass is only 7.5% of the total cost. I'm sure that some people would welcome the aid, but why did over 75% of those eligible refuse to accept it? Did you even bother to read the fine print? Having sent three to college, I assure you, I did. I'm sorry you don't like to hear someone point out that Romney is a snake oil salesman.

Wow. Let me refresh your memory.
ron johnson, 9:34 am on Wednesday, October 24, 2012
"My point stands, you both absolutely refuse to admit it and I feel sorry for both of you."

Your latest: ron johnson 3:05 pm on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 "You are actually referring to Stiv's comment about Feeling Sorry" talk about reading the fine print."

These are your own words, Ron. Please don't presume to lecture me when you can't even keep straight what you said and who it was addressed to.

And to put a point on it: "My point which you refuse to admit was not the cost issue, it was that Obama tried to say that the scholarships were in place before Romney became governor."
I answered that previously when you said ""The fact is that Obama was wrong by claiming that this was not implemented while Romney was governor." My response was "Yes, he was." Did you not notice that either? Maybe you should keep notes or something.

Dave,
You are actually referring to Stiv's comment about Feeling Sorry" talk about reading the fine print. You may want to get the facts straight when resorting to snarky comments. My point which you refuse to admit was not the cost issue, it was that Obama tried to say that the scholarships were in place before Romney became governor. He did not try in any way to imply that he was single-handlely giving kids a free ride. As far as why kids chose not to attend state colleges the quality of the schools may have somthing to do with it. I have also sent three kids to college. I would also argue that Obama has a fair amount of salesmenship in him as well. I see a lot of things promised and little performance and now more excuses.

Mitt in a landslide, this quote is from the debate over Mr 0's apology tour:

Romney- "Mr. President we don' t dictate to other nations, we free other nations from dictators"!

See, and I feel like he came off as knowing where Iran is, so... win.

Susan just think how you would feel with the unbearable pressure of being the President of the US and having to run a campaign to be reelected while the opposition plants as many lies as possible to create a constant rain on your parade as one of the most important leaders of the free world. President Bush use Karl Rove to get elected. Rove is a subscriber to the "Big Lie" theory of winning an election. He is a disiple of Machiavelli the world's most famous and followed political strategist who believed that duplicity and deceit is what is needed to win an election not honesty and truth. Romney is being accused up and down with saying anything to anyone to get himself elected. Read the Salt Lake Tribune's reason, for endorsing Barack Obama for his decisive leadership. The Tribune is the largest circulated newspaper in the state of Utah who once viewed Mitt Romney as their favorite adopted son but longer trust Mitt. The Tribune's story "Too Many Mitts" says it all. Read the article below from The Hill's Congress Blog entitled "The Amazing Zelig Candidacy" to futher understand how many see Mitt Romney's run for the President. You all should know Mitt is a candidate who is obliged to give back far too much to the private entities who support him being President. He is the representative of private interests far more than the general public. Read the Salt Lake Tribune's reasons and know that they endorsed George W. Bush in both of terms, but not Mitt, not this time.

WOW

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."

Mitt-mentum baby!

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.

Vincent .. after all this time and all your comments, I simply cannot determine where you stand and who you're for? More important for you to note, I appreciate your wit!

Anna, I am for Mitt, keep that hush ;) I have never seen such a need for change, I gave $, put up signs and plan to work on election day. I think our great nation will survive even if the unthinkable happens but I worry I will not recognize what remains. Notice LD did not point out his hero (Ross Perot) endorse Mitt, Mitt-mentum continues!

Cayman Islands ;)

Where do you get your onfo about France, Pimperton III? Fauxnews?

For more information on the campaign and Saturday's social and forum: http://patch.com/E-pVBW

You're letting a newspaper make your decisions? How quaint.

Mitt-mentum baby!

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.

Fox News doesn't endorse Democrats or Republican's.

we are sure you are just looking out for woman, trying to protect them from the "war on woman" and not acting on this theme for you failed incumbent ;)

Mr 0 from 2008: "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas -- maybe you just make some up!"

Too many for my taste. Of course Romney backed off from agreeing with Mourdock, but he is the Mittagator and the "Great Chameleon" who will say anything and different things to whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Why would the Republican Party allow these kinds of statements, which is similiar to what VP candidae Ryan said. It's an ongoing trait! Why would any women voter rationalize for any sane reason to vote for this party? They live in the 19th century.

Yeah, don't worry your pretty head about the war on women. Listen to the nice old men who tell you it doesn't exist.

Vincent DiRico:
I don't have to make up any ideas. I also don't have to distort them.
You can check what Richard Mourdock said in news yourself.

When I see/hear these people, I am glad we have separation of Religion and State.

I saw/read it before your post, I have 3 young daughters and would never allow a "war against woman", a single fool made the statement. Clearly your post looked to sway some into believing there is a "war against woman".

The "war on woman" is rubbish!

Says old white men AND bots. Well, I'm convinced.

The beauty in all of this is a fool can even post comments, no need to add a scintilla to the debate, just post drivel, ... in those cases dem dementia is the diagnosis.

Over 1000 anti-abortion bills have been proposed nationwide since 2010. Republicans have consistently denied women the right to equal pay, equal healthcare, and dismissed the idea that a woman who isn't broken and bleeding could possibly have been raped.

If you ask me, "dementia" is a pretty good description of the idea that you can dismiss the denigrate the concerns of 50% of the population, and still win an election.

There are laws on the books that deny women the rights to equal pay and equal healthcare? Do tell. Let's have some details.

"Over 1000 anti-abortion bills have been proposed nationwide since 2010"
-> you have some data to back that up?

"Republicans have consistently denied women the right to equal pay, equal healthcare"

-> WOW, are woman forced to see veterinarians for health care ;)

Do I have data? Funny you should ask.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2011/statetrends12011.html

"To date, legislators have introduced 916 measures related to reproductive health and rights in the 49 legislatures that have convened their regular sessions. (Louisiana’s legislature will not convene until late April.) "

Please note that this data is from the first quarter of 2011.

I took a look, I had never heard of the Guttmacher Institute, clearly it's ideologically attached to Planned Parenthood, ... so one must be really careful with it's data. You/they seem to indicate any "measure" (your word) is BAD, I looked at the Monthly State Update: MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN 2012 and after a quick read many of the actions make sense to me.

This is a decent write-up on equal pay

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

Obama suggested in his official proclamation last year: “I call upon all Americans to recognize the full value of women’s skills and their significant contributions to the labor force, acknowledge the injustice of wage discrimination, and join efforts to achieve equal pay.”

The wage gap statistic, however, doesn’t compare two similarly situated co-workers of different sexes, working in the same industry, performing the same work, for the same number of hours a day. It merely reflects the median earnings of all men and women classified as full-time workers.

I'm sure you hadn't, and having seen your typical choice of sources I won't bother arguing with you about the validity of citations; you either understand that yours are at least as partisan and you're being disingenuous, or you don't, and... well, either way my time would be wasted

And I do, in fact consider any infringement upon my bodily sovereignty "bad." If you want to be in charge of a uterus, get your own.

"being disingenuous" -> sorry I don't see the need for 'partial birth' abortions and I WANT to know about anything that happens with my minor daughters so as I said all "measures" are not bad, throwing around the large # of "measures" is "being disingenuous".

There's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." That's a misleading political term, not a medical one. And if you want to know what's going on with your daughters, then parent your daughters, don't ask the government to do it for you.

Incidentally, how many daughters do you have? If it's three or more, statistically at least one of them will have at least one abortion at some point. Have a nice day!

I can't be the only one who sees the irony in a liberal saying "parent your daughters, don't ask the government to do it for you."

'partial birth' is when the fetus grows past a certain time and THEN someone decides to abort it, it is NOT a "misleading political term". In my eyes it is the opposite extreme of the Murdock comments/ideas (if the mother's health is not at risk)!

I do have 3 daughters and they are parented just fine, I do not expect them to ever need an abortion nor do I ever expect the 'parental rights' "measures" to apply to me/them but of course I do not know so I appreciate them!

Computer age. ?? Dafuq..
Troll using computer age #FAIL

>> A President that lies to the citizens is a President that has contempt for its citizens.

You've probably summed up every President since JFK, if not further back..

Funny, the Boston.com web site has no mention of the latest revelations about Benhazai attack. It's such a shame the media is protecting the current administration and not informing voters and citizens of what really transpired. People really need to open their eyes as to what this administration is doing and not doing.

You can draw a list of many things that have happened in the Middle East since we have been at war there since the 1980's that are questionable, but only fools talk about things in public why we are at War. The story will change many times because know one will be able to say for sure why and what and that's the way it is during war. I think we are foolish to use this as a political football in this election. It should not be. How desperate do you have to be to put more lives in danger around the world in thinking we should be arguing about this. Our military are in danger and under duress all the time. Loose lips sink ships and in the Middle East that goes double or triple. Hell most of us don't know what's happening in our town's City Hall yesterday,but suddenty were all sure what happend on the other side of the world. It's dangerous talk and should beneath the dignity of those running for election and should be left alone. I thought this election was about other things but here we go. Machiavellianism rises again. They all lie so pick your poison. If you want Romney you get private enterprise running the country in all the big issues that matter. I'm sorry you guys hate the man Obama but I think he is he best choice. Besides we are in 2 wars, An economic and one we are still fighting on the ground in the Middle East. Not the wisest time to out the man who as been dealing with this mess for 4 years. It's plain stupid and counterproductive in every area.

Gee Paul - That brings to mind all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Mr. Bush's orange alerts which is what helped get this country into the mess we are in now. Romney will say whatever the voters in front of him wants to hear. I guess you are correct. The Republicans do have alot of contempt for the American voter. They treat them like they are stupid.

"only fools talk about things in public why we are at War"

-> rubbish, I recall Hillary Clinton's shrill "Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism", hmm the shoe is on the other foot?

"I'm sorry you guys hate the man Obama"

-> hate? not me/most, in the USA failure has consequences, Mr 0's record is one of economic failure, the Libya situation clearly shows it was poorly handled/communicated from the start and the new brochure is more of the same. He is done.

Shay,
All we have to do is look at what has happended in the last four years and wonder why you would vote for the incumbant and by the way why are voters them. I guess that means you do not vote and thus are included.

nope, sorry, don't buy it and I don't think you buy it ("TPTB", ...) otherwise why vote for Brown? The current failed leader has spewed nothing but lies, remember this (Flashback: Obama: "You Make a Big Election About Small Things ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18lXQDGwpg). What is the solution?

I always vote, not always incumbent and not always down a single party line. What we need is a leader who will bring both sides to the table and find some common ground to actually get things done, instead of spending 4 years wasting everyone's time filibustering and spouting partisan talking points. People have to work every day in real jobs with people they don't like, sometimes on projects they don't like, and sometimes when they disagree vehemently with the direction their company is taking. That's life - you still have to go to work and get the job done. THAT is a quality I see in Scott Brown which I admire greatly. I do NOT agree with his every position but I realize that's pretty much impossible. I doubt I've ever met two people in the world who agreed on every single social, economic, or political issue.
The solution is to elect someone who will do what (in my opinion) Scott Brown does, and work with both sides to find common ground and move this country forward.

I agree 100% and I'm with SB.

We did not get any of that from current the Me Me celebrity president (Mr travel to Vegas the day after a terrorist attack). We WILL get more of that from Mitt.

You don't want me to find you some data point and then bicker over it do you?

It is clear Mr 0 failed on your measures:
- Mr 0's head is so far up the liberal elite/lobbyist backsides, ...
- Mr 0 did not deliver "REAL" change, he just divided MORE, he failed on leadership, think about this, find a single issue Mr 0 took the leadership role on, brought the country together and the country is better because of it
- Mr 0's running mate and "stupid" stuff coming out of his pie hole ;)

It is time for a change!

(Aww, some people can't handle grown up words, here, I'll censor myself for you.)
---------------------------
Oh Vinny, you wound me so. Me, bicker? Never.

I know I keep saying this, but the entrenched D vs. R crowd never seems to quite fully grasp it. Not supporting the Republican candidate does not mean I support the Democrat. They both pander to special interests, to me that's not change at all. That's the same political crapfest we've had for the past few elections. People voting for the lesser of two evils because there isn't a candidate they truly get behind.

I have a pro/con list a mile long, and neither of these guys even comes close.

Psst, people with glass running mates shouldn't throw stones. Ryan has said his fair share of really, truly, stupid stuff. Thus the "War on Women" talking points from the left. Although, for a bunch of people claiming to tout small government, they're awfully invasive in the legislation of peoples' private lives. That's just one small example of the hypocrisy endemic on both sides.

THAT is change I can vote for. I don't see those qualities in either candidate for President

I'm not sure it is safe to comment here, rubbing shoulders with ... ;)

You did bring VP up first in your removed comment so your spin on history is not accurate. The debates this year should make it clear to anyone who wants to run, you need to be seen by the American people. Debate #1 trashed millions (> $100 million?) of Mr 0's negative ads and since then it has been ALL Mitt-mentum, more states are in play, woman are in play, independents are OK with Mitt, ...

A good point, Ron. I watched the debate between Ryan and Biden. To Ryan's credit, he stay composed throughout the whole debate, while his smug opponent, Mr. Biden laughed through most of the debate. When the topic of Social Security and Medicare came up, you can bet millions of senior citizens were listening to that subject. And what were they treated to? Joe Biden's contemptuous laugh at all of Ryan's responses. Shay, don't think for a minute that seniors weren't disgusted by Biden's contempt, and that smug smile.....I submit, they will make THE difference with seniors come voting time.

Meh, How is one supposed to meet silliness, if not with laughter? I'm betting that seniors with intact faculties* were far more put off by Ryan's insistence that the ice floe he's preparing for them is a nice cruise than by Biden's justifiable amusement at the idea that they'd buy it.

*Aw hell, no reason to single out seniors there. Humans with intact faculties.

Stiv,

After reading more of your statements I changed my mind. Intelligent people can sometimes read things and then after some thought do just that. I decided that given you intransigence, I decided that it was just not worth my time to do so.

yes and was it true or not.

I let the WMD comments go until now, do you remember who heard about the WMD and authorized it, do you recall if was JUST Bush?

"Romney wants to bring back the same defense team" -> rubbish!

Remember what is going on here, Mr 0 said this in 2008: "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."

Now, Now Paul - As far as WWII is concerned I lost family and do not make light of war. That is why I get upset when there were no weapons of mass destruction and the American public was duped. Think of all of those who died unnecesarily. . I don't want more of the same with Iran and with Romney working with the same group that got us into Iraq it is pretty unsettling. The neoconservative mentality is pretty pathetic. Now if Romney had character he would have fought in Vietnam rather than hide in France. It is easy to be prowar when you and yours are not doing the fighting. As far as the orange alerts - in his book The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again, Ridge says his resignation was due to an effort by senior Bush administration officials to raise the nation's terror alert level in the days before the 2004 presidential vote. And there is alot more to it than just that. I know that you will come up with one lame excuse or another to defend the indefensible. You act like a frightened child. Out of fear you would sacrifice your freedoms. I feel sorry for you. Funny thing is I also have family that were victims of fascism. People turned their heads out of fear - just like you Paul.

broken record much?

In debate #1 Mitt taught Mr 0 2 points:
- Mr 0 is entitled to his own plane, his own ... BUT NOT HIS OWN FACTS
- no matter how often you repeat a lie, it is still a LIE

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

The National Debt as a % of the GDP (ND) declined steadily after WWII, under Republican and Democrat administrations, from a whopping 120%, to 30%, at the end of Carter’s adm. Under Reagan and Bush I, the ND doubled to about 65%, to deep a little to 58%, under Clinton. It increased again to about 62%, under G.W. Bush’s first term and blew up to 85% under his 2nd term!

Some book keeping facts. Increases in the ND
- Reagan & Bush I, $3.4 Trillion
- Bush II, $6.1 Trillion
- Total $9.5 Trillion

However, like a mortgage, the debt earns interest, and these interests are compounded. A simple calculation shows that by the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30, 2010, the Reagan-Bush I debt + interests had grown to $8.2 Trillion, and the Bush II’s (debt + int.), another $3.8 Trillion, for a total of $12 TRILLION! (Please, note that almost half of the debt under Bush II was from the interests on the Reagan-Bush-I debt, but it was still all Republican).

Obama took over at the beginning of the deep recession, and, as mentioned above, his budget deficit plus the compounding interests of the preceding Republic debt of $12 Trillion, keep adding up to past $16 Trillion, as of this morning, October 25, 2012, and counting…”

hmmm Obama is the ONLY president ever to inherit a bit of a mess? and his $6 TRILLION is patriotic? counting debt as D + R, ... Mr 0's comments were clear, he never cut Bush a break on interest, ... drivel!

What's the difference between that and say, ordering a sub or a wrap from a pizza joint?

Mike G., that's a good question -- you should leave that comment on that article!

It's 5:19 am in Tewksbury, and you obviously had a bad night. Why don't you go back to sleep? How did Obama "tried covered up the murder of four Americans?" Maybe saying they all died of food poisoning?

Andrew ... nice try but I doubt you'll get these folks away from this one. As for me, I NEVER order delivery, don't like strangers at my door, especially during the darker hours of winter. Call me old fashioned, I don't mind, but better safe than sorry is my go-to slogan!

Thanks Anna,

Just want to remind everybody here, and also for other readers on the site that there are more stories here than just Obama/Romney and Warren/Brown!

I am up early because I have a job to get to. I apologize for the typos above but it was early and i was using a PDA. If you are not aware of the 4 Americans that were murdered and that it took the president about 4 weeks to acknowledge it was a terrorist act then you are not paying attention. I am not sure what you are referring to about food posioning but it is disrespecful to these Americans that were murdured to make a comment like that. These people were brutally murdured on american soil (ie the consulate) and the US has done nothing about it.

Anna We are talking about something going on in the middle of a war. America has never done that before, or if they have they purposely giave out erroneous information. We are talking about the Middle East and all that it entails. I'm sorry but I can't see how we should be talking about something like this just because one side is trying to make political points out of it. Yes, people have died, and they are still dying more often than we would like to know, but this issue, I firmly beleive should not be spoken about in a that took place in a very volatile area of the world. Lives are still at stake and we want to make political points, now. It seems so desperate , when there is so much more to discuss. I believe we hardly know what took place at our own City Hall yesterday, but now we are sure we have all the facts about an event that took place on the other side of the world. Who would even want to discuss it with those kind of risks. Nothing we have ever talked about since we arrived in Iraq and the Middle East is remotely accurate. We should button up and OK, I admit you are a free person to talk about anything you want, but there are many who have been in war that will and do agree with me. Americans lives are still at risk, and we are still in the Middle East. Do you really think this is or should be a political football at this time, just because Romney's people want to use everything they can during an election? I can only say I hope we stop this talk now!

That is a wasted vote. Sorry to say but that is true. He can't win so why waste your vote on him?

Any vote for president in MA is a wasted vote. Obama will win MA by a landslide. The only thing left at our disposal is to use our vote to make a statement that there other options beyond R or D. That is what I intend to do by voting for Johnson.

TewksParent is right. The way the EC works means in this state, it's better to vote third party to send a message because it's going to go blue anyway - IF that's the message you want to send. Libertarian is a good way to go.

@ Tewsbury
You don't waste your vote when you vote according to your conscience and principles. Voting for one candidate just because you think he will be a winner, or because is the least of two evils is the most cowardly thing you could do in a Democracy. Unfortunately, except for the real committed Republican or Democrats (and even there, there are many who compromise themselves), this is how most people vote, and then you wonder why things keeps falling apart, and people are forever dissatisfied and miserable with their lots and the state of the nation.

Thanks for reiterating my point for me, q.

In debate #1 Mitt taught Mr 0 2 points:
- Mr 0 is entitled to his own plane, his own ... BUT NOT HIS OWN FACTS
- no matter how often you repeat a lie, it is still a LIE

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

oh LD did you miss this? Mr Perot endorsed Mitt, I quote a lefty site to make it easier ;)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/ross-perot-mitt-romney_n_1969823.html

That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney in his quest for the presidency. We can’t afford four more years in which national debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows, and our military is weakened. Mitt has the background, experience, intelligence, and integrity to turn things around. He has my absolute support.”

Well said Dave, nice to have an experienced objective opinion.

Agree ... so why does Barak Obama make his plans known in advance, i.e., deadlines for leaving an area. Should that not be considered a strategic measure, not give the opposition a heads up about what we plan?

Because, Anna, it depends entirely on the message you're trying to send. It's apparent the result being sought is to finish up and get out of there. So, if you make your planned exit known, it send the message to the opposition that "look, we're out of here on such and such a date, UNLESS you misbehave and cause us to alter that timeline". I serves the dual purpose of telling the press and the public "look, we're trying, because we know that's what you want, but the other side isn't cooperating."

Thanks for your service. Libya, correct? I don't know of any reason a president should lie to the American people, if it is allowed then we are no different than many of the countries in the Middle East. Mr 0, his team, his campaign surrogates BLEW the response to the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack. Can we agree on that?

Karen, we all find our fun in different places. The anonymity is what makes this so interesting (for me anyway) and, yes, fun, especially when the same people comment and you get to know them. And sharing opinions can be fruitful ... if not to change minds then to affirm one's beliefs. I think of it as mental exercise ... you call it what you wish.

I agree Karen.....most here enjoy the arguing...arguing with them is like arguing with a stroke patient. I just make a couple of points, and move on myself.

Beats spreading gossip about special needs kids and their families.

really? I know why they attempted a coverup, the lame street media and dem dementia precludes you from seeing it, see if you can follow:
1 - Mr 0 failed on the economy
2 - Mr 0 did not deliver on MANY promises
3 - Mr 0's foreign policy "success" was built on OBL is dead and al-Qaeda is on the run. Because of this they did not want to admit there was a terrorist attack on 9/11/2012. It has nothing to do with an economic war, any other war, ... it is all about the Me Me president's butt.

3 strikes and you are OUT Mr 0, Mitt-mentum continues!

Just because you speak out about things you see happening here doesn't mean you should leave the country. If that were the value this country were built on, the damn English would have left the Natives alone and gone back across the ocean. ;)

Thanks Paul ... very cute ... I know about lol, but prefer to think "lots of love". Hey, I just learned to use this computer less than a year ago (never had a need until I decided it was about time to "modernize") and always being in a learning mode throughout my life. Now, I need the courage to tackle an i-phone, but still don't feel the need ... a simple cell serves me well enough (for now).

Anna, I believe politicians do the same, except they collect lifetime pensions and benefits, often after returning to lucrative positions in the private sector.

I could never come to terms with that, politicians complaining about America and other politicians, while collecting hefty government pensions, crying about the $200 someone gets in food stamps every month, and NOT doing us the favor of leaving the country when they are done. ;)

I don't understand how you can make this comment, Anna, but Amber could not. What's going on with Patch leadership?

such high bars Powell sets: 1) he did not get us into any new wars 2) coming out of the economic dive, 2% growth, WOW

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121026/us-sununu-powell-endorsement/

Powell endorsed Obama Wednesday on CBS "This Morning," saying the president got the United States out of Iraq, has laid out a plan for leaving Afghanistan "and didn't get us into any new wars."

He praised Obama's economic performance, saying that while difficult choices are ahead on taxes, spending and budgetary policies, "steadily, I think we've begun to come out of the dive, and we're gaining altitude."

Well, isn't that true? It's not a high bar, granted, but its pretty accurate. Some of the smartest finance guys I know have made quite a bit of money in the last four years, and the stock market has rebounded fairly well overall.

The unemployment figures are always a joke, neither side reports them properly, and from what I understand the statistic doesn't account for massive amounts of underemployed workers and those who've fallen off the UI rolls who are still unemployed.

I actually like Colin Powell. I have a lot of respect for the guy, and I'm kind of bummed that people think he'd endorse someone based on race alone. :-/

Race plays a role because people continually focus on it. There are those that voted against the president due to his race, as well. The division comes, not from the president himself, but from all of the silly things Americans choose to harp on that have nothing to do with actually politics. The fact is that we simply don't agree on some basic tenets around the role of government, the role of women, how we support our own communities, foreign policy, etc. All of the bickering in the world won't change that and you can't possibly make everyone happy. If our country falls apart because we elect any one candidate, it's due our we the people and our own behaviors. It's the divisiveness and selfishness that will do us in, and it won't matter who is in office when it happens.

Christy - well said.

Paul - The problem with your statement is that you make it sound like the only factor is race. Do you think it's posssible that there were other factors that led to Oprah's donation? Do you think Oprah would have made a large donation to a black republican from South Carolina? Did she donate to Al Sharpton in the past? Obama and Clinton were highly competitive for the black vote and most of the Clinton supporters stuck with the Democratic ticket for president. The party allegiance was a bigger factor than race.

A good statement Paul. I too was labeled. Why is it always the liberals calling out racism. They do not want to see reality for what it is.
Liberals would rather call our Rev E. Raleigh a racist rather that calling Obama's Rev Wright one.

@Kevin,Pauls comments did not refer to race as being the only factor. It has played a big role. For and against. As for Oprah, She had never publicly endorsed a presidential candidate before and had even stated many times prior "she was not very political", Why jump on the scenes for Obama, and do all she could do to get him elected. NOT RACE? If it is more party affiliation, where was she all the other years for her democratic party?? And where is she now?? Oh, that's right her and the 1st Lady do not get along... Why would she still endorse him? Because she can't turn back now... It is what it is and she and Colin Powell can endorse who they want. But many people can READ between the lines and call it like it is.

What the heck is a honey boo boo????

Seriously, Vinny. Are you gonna make me Google Honey Boo Boo? Spill it, man. :)

I can't believe you even know what a Honey Boo Boo is. See? This is what happens when channels like TLC (used to be funded by NASA and the DoEHW, not unlike PBS) gets privatized. They pander to the bottom-rung, least-common-denominator American television viewer.

Honey Boo Boo. You give up Mister Rogers and Big Bird, and you get stuck with spoiled brat princesses from Toddlers and Tiaras. Unreal.

Sigh.

he inherited what was called the greatest nation on earth. But the republicans killed that when they decided that it was going to be party first, country last. they were far from patriots, they should have been hung for treason, with their whole "we will not work with the POTUS, our priority is to make him "one term". Absolutely nothing Patriotic about what the party of Saint Ron has become. More like treason.

President Obama has done an incredible job of repairing all the damage that the traitors in the last admin. did to this fabulous country.

I see you like to use the term "romnesia", that is one I missed in Mr 0's recent petty list, thanks for the reminder.

This is accurate history.

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

Wait - doesn't Congress play a role here?

Also Note, Mark - nothing in the Black Five reports was actually reported in the Fox News article that the Black Five linked to (as if it was following up on the Fox report).

Not to mention the Fox news item is the only source of all these "Stand down" reports everyone else in the echo chamber is repeating. There is no context or facts of any sort to back it up. What there IS however, is a clear and detailed state department account - in all its gory detail here : http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm - they did send in response teams.

" there is an additional security force at another U.S. compound two kilometers away. It serves as a rapid reaction force, a quick reaction security team – a quick reaction security team" Those were the guys who didn't 'stand down' and rescued the survivors. But what we don't do is send everyone from everywhere at once to a scene. This is all fabrication. but if you hate Obama with a passion you can overlook it, I'm sure.

hey let me get my 15 year old son to jumble a bunch of official sounding military terms from Call of Duty together, print it on a website nobody has seen before, source it from "very trusted people" and let's run with this "story". Sheesh.

thanks for that link, all local forces did help, nothing more and NOT enough, they had to abandon both sites. More and more info is coming out, clearly this was botched from day 1! Are you of the opinion Mr 0 called it a terrorist attack in the rose garden? I read the entire statement and if he did call 9/11/2012 (I don't agree that he did) then he did it in a wimpy voice!

You're on thin ice, Amber.

Story of my life, Andrew. :)

Saying "all the king's horses and all the king's men" (my comment in its entirety) in NO WAY violates any TOS. Thus, I call a spade a spade. It's absolutely tripe, and tripe isn't a swear. Someone got "delete Amber happy" and is now trying to justify it.

You'll notice I edited and re-posted one of my comments without any "violating" adult language, but that last comment was certainly not a swear and in no way violated anything Patch-y.

Amber,

I could delete your comments all day long. I don't want to, but I could. Of course, by that point, I'd probably just suspend your account because I have better things to do with my time.

So as long as you don't say anything that can be construed as a swear or as nothing more than just insults to other users, everybody will be happy. Sound good?

P.S. -- Everybody else, this goes for you too.

such high bars Powell sets: 1) he did not get us into any new wars 2) coming out of the economic dive, 2% growth, WOW

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121026/us-sununu-powell-endorsement/

Powell endorsed Obama Wednesday on CBS "This Morning," saying the president got the United States out of Iraq, has laid out a plan for leaving Afghanistan "and didn't get us into any new wars."

He praised Obama's economic performance, saying that while difficult choices are ahead on taxes, spending and budgetary policies, "steadily, I think we've begun to come out of the dive, and we're gaining altitude."

General Powell got used and then thrown under the bus by G.W. Bush and his minions. As a man of integrity, the General could not renounced his own Party, but he could refuse to become their puppet by accepting the nomination of the Republican Party. He would have been a shoe in...too bad for the Nation. Paraphrasing Rumsfelt, "You govern with the people you have, not the people you might want or wish to have at a later time. ..."

Powell's endorsement is less than glowing, it has done NOTHING to stop the Mitt-mentum.

I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, had he run.

Now, Mark, that's what I would call a well informed and intelligent statement, given that since the end of WWII, the presidency of this country has been in the hands of a republican president, 36 years, versus those of a democrat president, 32 years.

Shay ... you cut my goodbye short! WMD's were thought to exist in Iraq not only by our administration but others as well ... that they were not found does not constitute us telling lies, it means we were not correct in our assumption. Plain and simple. Understand, I did not favor going into Iraq but I never thought lies were told about the WMD's. Now, you never answered Paul's ? about how your freedoms have been affected by the Patriot Act ... I really want to know since I personally have not felt any infringement upon mine but I have understood it and comprehend the rational behind its implementation. Read all you want ... Ridge is just speaking what he "thinks" not what is written in stone and I don't believe all I read by disgruntled people. To accept that there is danger for us, to learn from the murders of hundreds on 9/11, to not be complacent and take some action is a cautionary measure not intended to frighten us like children, but to keep us on our toes and try to see to our safety. I don't understand how you can find fault with that unless you actually did lose some of your personal freedoms because of it, but since you've not addressed that, I have to assume you did not.

Quasi ... Powell was not thrown under the bus, he voluntarily retired and would not consider the Presidency because of personal reasons, one being his wife"s objections, one of which was fear of discrimination. Wasn't brave enough. I admire him but he is just a human like the rest of us.

Shay, for a matter of facts, my FATHER fought in Guadal Canal. That was called 'Little Iwo Jima'. If you don't know what THAT is, then this is pointless. AS far as that ridiculous comment, 'turning my head out of fear', YOU are just a ridiculous woman. I, of all people, turn my head at N-O-T-H-I-N-G. If you're going to make blind remarks like that, then you shouldn't be surprised at other people's animosity! AGAIN, we didn't ask for 911, but we sure got it. That day, EVERYTHING changed for us.You're going to have to just deal with fallout from it. The Israeli's don't give two 'schites' about mentalities like YOURS. Guess why? They are too busy trying to see save themselves from their enemies trying to kill them. It's called DOING SOMETHING! So go cry to someone else and pretend that your personal freedoms (you still have NOT given ONE lousy example of how that happened) have been eroded by the Patriot Act!

Hi Paul,
There are so many examples of abuses of the Patriots Act, that I do not have the time to post them all here. What I do suggest though is that you Google "Patriot Act abuses". You will find pages of listings of the issue. I hope this helps you. As far as your father fighting in war, I would only hope that you would give some thought about the seriousness of war and realize that it is not a game of battleships. I had family that were killed. Therefore I do not take war lightly. Seeing that your father served you must resent a man like Mitt who preached war and hid in France, Enjoy your reading on the Patriot Act. Take care. Oh - PS On target practice you missed!

Holy cow! Is MItt going to can Bernanke and audit the Fed??????

Colter95, I completely agree with Romney, when he said we should have let General Motors fail. Like any other business, they would have filed for bankruptcy, and then restructured.

The name is ANNA! Who are the innocents that were victimized by the PA? I am NOT confusing the act with the war in Iraq, you brought it up in your tirade over WMD. You know nada about me and for you to accuse me of lack of intelligence/education is insulting and complete conjecture on your part but that's about what one can expect from a person as single minded as you. You have every right to logically complain about anything you wish as long as it IS logical and I have the right to disagree with your assumptions. Further, for you to assume that I don't care about my fellow man is more proof that you have no respect for other's opinions especially when you can't begin to imagine my life or how I spend my hours. Fear? My only fear is the possibility that people like you perpetuate falsehoods and take pleasure in slinging trashy insults when I went out of my way to have a decent dialogue with you. You corner the market on nastiness, it echoes in all you say. You are as patronizing as this present administration and I don't appreciate your speaking as though to a child. How do you live with yourself I wonder. BTW, this democratic republic we enjoy comes from differences in opinions, sharing of ideas and working toward the good for everyone, not just you and your ilk. Do NOT respond to this ... I will not acknowledge another word from you, especially if directed toward me, since you appear immune to decent interaction.

- a strong economy is not one
- strong leadership is not one
- working across the isle is not one
- a strong voice for America is not one
- a strong foreign policy is not one
- keeping our diplomats safe is not one
- keeping terrorists from hitting Americans on 9/11/2012 is not one
- closing gitmo is not one
- working to decrease the deficit is not one
- green energy success is not one
- $4 gal gas is not one
- a reasonable energy policy is not one
- ...

wait I thought of one: OBAMA-phone

Mitt-mentum continues!

- energy policy has been the best since any president fool!
BTW the average price of gasoline is not $4.00 per gallon, stop spreading lies
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-25/gasoline-decline-blunting-romney-weapon-energy-markets
You will lose this argument AGAIN for the fifth time so don't even try.

President Obama has put America’s new cars and trucks on the path to being twice as efficient by 2025 as cars sold in 2011. New standards will loosen Big Oil’s grip on our pocketbooks, slash our oil use, and reduce harmful air and water pollutants
BTW I hear the gym down the street is having a special. Maybe you should join to loosen your load

BTW the 1970's called, they want your gas guzzler back.
And speaking of Romney's contributors - BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?id=N00000286

The President has no control of gas prices, be they Democrat or Republican. Such a tired argument. The oil lobby manipulates prices, we've seem them go staggeringly high even when the per-barrel price of oil was absurdly low.

yup and some of the $90 billion is being used to make an extension cord from Gloucester to the spot you use to charge your 28 mile (total) electric car, it is a toy, see ya

a wise energy policy that takes advantage of all the resources available will do a very good job making energy affordable, to argue anything else is just an attempt to score political points on the backs of US citizens, Mr 0 did nothing positive here, now after 4 years of nothing he has found natural gas, go take a look at his comments on it.

Mitt-mentum continues!

wrong AGAIN
What the President has done with his new fuel economy standards is
SAVES 3.1 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL EVERY DAY IN 2030
Equivalent to more than one-third of current U.S. net imports of crude oil and petroleum products.

SAVES YOU OVER $8,000 IN FUEL COSTS
Over the life of your new car, that's after paying for fuel saving technology.

CUTS CLIMATE POLLUTION BY 570 MILLION METRIC TONS
That's per year, starting in 2030.

SAVES AMERICANS $140 BILLION AT THE PUMP
In 2030 alone: less money to Big Oil means more money to spend on the things you like.

CREATES 570,000 NEW JOBS ALL ACROSS AMERICA
That’s due to the 2017 through 2025 standards alone! More efficient cars lead to bigger savings and a stronger economy.

Hey you never did tell me what you think of Romney supporters - BIG OIL!!!!!
And did you also see that his biggest contributors are - Goldman Sachs, BOA, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, on an on.
He will be a puppet to BIG OIL and BIG BANKS. Your a fool to think otherwise. BIG BUSINESS has been lining his pockets and he'll take care his buddies. He will keep us relying on fossil fuels and deregulate banking. Some leader.

Face it, you lack of an argument to any of my points.
And again you are ignoring the fact of whom Romney has as his $$.
The only plan Mitt has is to have BIG OIL keeping us dependent on fossil fuels.
That is a plan for those who want to lose.

wrong, try again
You say failed policy tells me 1.) you are a GOP therefore you are against anything the current president does and 2.) you know nothing about energy policies

wrong, again
gas prices are set by the world market (among other factors). Just the other day the Wall Street Journal ran this story: U.S. Oil Boom Falls Short of Pump. This story makes clear that the surge in U.S. oil production has nothing to do with prices at the pump, but everything to do with profits for refiners.
The fact is that refiners are buying some domestic oils at a discount and turning around and selling gasoline based on the market price for a gallon of gasoline. These refiners to don't pass on their discount, they pocket bigger profits. The WSJ article features the surging profits of two refiners: HollyFrontier Corp and Tesoro.
So you are wrong........again........ as usual when it comes to energy
This is getting to the point where you can not teach against ignorance.
BTW MITT = BIG OIL = RECORD PROFITS
DA

In case you couldn't hear over the engine of your 70's gas guzzler - the Obama administration has done more than any other administration to give Americans a solution to high gas prices: Doubling the fuel efficiency of new cars by 2025 and cutting their carbon pollution in half to boot. These standards are having an impact now: With better choices already on the market, these standards will ensure that the owner of a new 2025 car will save $8,000 over the life of that new car.

MITT = BIG OIL = RECORD PROFITS
So I assume you have a lot of stock in BIG OIL

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama committed to developing shale gas resources “without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”
This is what we should expect, nothing less.

Voting for Mitt Romney will only increase the record profits for BIG OIL and their outdated fossil fuels. LOOK at who finances and influences his campaign.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?id=N00000286
If YOU don't look your like a horse with blinders on.

Hey Mr. Ed
you can't even deny who his "energy advisor" is - BIG OIL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/harold-hamm-mitt-romney-adviser_n_1882355.html
It is no coincidence since MITT is financed by BIG OIL so he chooses BIG OIL as his advisor = BIG OIL RECORD PROFITS UNDER MITT.

<copy and paste>
wrong, again
the Obama administration has done more than any other administration to give Americans a solution to high gas prices: Doubling the fuel efficiency of new cars by 2025 and cutting their carbon pollution in half to boot. These standards are having an impact now: With better choices already on the market, these standards will ensure that the owner of a new 2025 car will save $8,000 over the life of that new car.
THAT is not a wasted 4 years.

what is the matter, cat got your fingers when it comes to MITT and his "energy policy"?
You don't want to type about it? Are you in denial?
You can't have a debate and not talk about your savior and his "BIG OIL policy"

your little "catch phase" is all you have when it comes to real green energy solutions

You can't even get the $4.00 per gallon of price right as I stated above as FACT
You can't even get the FACT that the government does not set the price of gasoline correct.
And the polls have shown for weeks now that the race is even. That's not momentum. But you can continue to use your "little" phrase if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Again you have no comment on MITT and BIG OIL. It's surprise there. But I wonder why you can't talk about MITT. Face the FACTS on your "savior" FRED.
Denial.

How ironic that when it comes to energy policies and the candidates that we can talk about the President's. But when we talk about the alternative it suddenly becomes hush on your side.
That's because he has no policy. And what he does have equals BIG OIL and BIG OIL PROFITS. How ironic that you wouldn't want to talk about that. If I was voting for MITT on his "energy policy" I wouldn't want to talk about it either.

lol "invited myself"
thats a good one
Your in denial over the President and his energy policies verse your "hush hush" candidate. Why is that? Because it is EASY for you to blame the price of gasoline on the President.

So let's talk about MITT and his "energy policy". Oh I forgot, YOU don't want too because it is too hard to face the FACTS.

You can't even get the $4.00 per gallon of price right as I stated above as FACT
You can't even get the FACT that the government does not set the price of gasoline correct.
And the polls have shown for weeks now that the race is even. That's not momentum. But you can continue to use your "little" phrase if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Again you have no comment on MITT and BIG OIL. It's surprise there. But I wonder why you can't talk about MITT. Face the FACTS on your "savior" FRED.
Denial.

Adios
Let me know when you want to talk about MITT and his "energy policy"
I already know the answer - NEVER.

4 wasted years and $4 gasoline, a coincidence?

:o

Mitt-mentum!

read and learn

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper_8.23.pdf

A crucial component of Mitt Romney’s Plan for a Stronger Middle Class is to
dramatically increase domestic energy production and partner closely with Canada and Mexico to achieve North American energy independence by 2020. While President Obama has described his own energy policy as a “hodgepodge,” sent billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies, rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline as not in “the national interest,” and sought repeatedly to stall development of America’s domestic resources, Romney’s path forward would establish America as an energy superpower in the 21st century.

THE ROMNEY AGENDA:
- Empower states to control onshore energy development;
- Open offshore areas for energy development;
- Pursue a North American Energy Partnership;
- Ensure accurate assessment of energy resources;
- Restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation; and
- Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies.

Who owns who? http://www.opensecrets.org/

holy cow Virgil Goode was a candidate, thinking, ... ;)

Paul ... I now understand your comment about making points and pulling out and I thought I had backed away but could not let the insults pass. Note ... it continues, but I know who I am and what I stand for so I will take the hi road :>)

(Somewhere in these comments someone (I think Amber) used :/) ... know what that means? My education begs to continue.

Anna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons

Powell does nothing for this election except set low bars for Mr 0's failed record, it is going going gone, Mitt-mentum!

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."

T ... it is Not race that drives the opposition. And never should it be religion. As far as lies, Obama does his fair share as currently with this whole Bengazi affair.

T it's hard to accept but your much closer to the truth than many who don't really undestand what is going on. Sheep to the slaughter you could say. There is too much racial hate that drives this election, or Sununu a very bright would not be so stupid to say the things he did. The advisors never say things like that unless he knew it was an important part of the election., also many who support Romney know this deep inside but won't talk about, because they understand what you are saying. It kills me that they can't understand he is the representative of the ultra rich and the biggest of the big industrialists. He will be beholden to them. Hell they paid for the majority of the private entity commericials for him. People who support are unable to imagine that what Romney represents to these people who produce big oil, national defense manufacturers of military weapons which are the most costly part of our of our debt. We are not talking about billions of dollars but trillions. Many just cannot understand how a minority rules so often in our nationa goverment. It's called power and money and they will do anything to keep and maitain that power. It's a shame, because as you say if these people walked among us we would be afraid, very afraid.

LD Mr Perot has a different take on your fiction:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/ross-perot-mitt-romney_n_1969823.html

That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney in his quest for the presidency. We can’t afford four more years in which national debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows, and our military is weakened. Mitt has the background, experience, intelligence, and integrity to turn things around. He has my absolute support.”

Thank you, and right back at ya.

Now Vincent, if were playing poker and that is pretty nearly what we are doing. I think a General Colin Powell trumps a Ross Perot any day. Powell is a
Royal Straight Flush in this campaign. Ole Ross is a King of Diamonds at best, and a billionaire, and those guys stand to loose a lot of money, if somebody tries to take those tax breaks away, but you don't have to worry about the Mittigator. My advice to those in the top 10% is to stick with Mitty, he's no cheap skate, because Obama is going to shake you down good and I know "Gator" don't play no Mitt! Hey you feel me, Gator never been about that, never been about playing no Mitt! Did I not make that clear? Talk about putting his money where your mouth is! Vincent really, how much they paying you, because whatever it is, your worth every last non taxable dividend? I really like Ross and I want to like Mitty but I know he's going to stick it to the us, if he gets the chance, so if I gonna have a couple of beers with some real friends", before and after the election, I'm sticking with Obama, Warren and Powell. Everybody should have a favorite Republican and Democrat, don't you think? Of course General Powell is mine favorite Republican. Vincent, whose your favorite Democrat that's still alive? You must have at least one, don't you. I think Senator Carl Levin is a staight shooter, don't you?

OK bless me then, for I have sinned, against the Republican Mittigators. No bless you Kate, for putting a bit of satirical humor on this thread. We need a break once in awhile from Vincent throwing cold water on all our good ideas. I heard he never smiles. It just isn't fair!! I bet he never smiles, unless he's sure your favor the Mittagator So don't go away, we need more ancient aliens around here cause "Gator" don't play no Mitt, hey you feel me "Gator" never been about that, never been about playing no Mitt!!

hmmm more Mitt-mentum

I promise I did not get the big bucks to write that, but is what I have been saying all along :o

The Des Moines Register endorsement: Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121028/CAROUSEL/310280078/The-Des-Moines-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-fresh-economic-vision?nclick_check=1

Barack Obama rocketed to the presidency from relative obscurity with a theme of hope and change. A different reality has marked his presidency. His record on the economy the past four years does not suggest he would lead in the direction the nation must go in the next four years.

Voters should give Mitt Romney a chance to correct the nation’s fiscal course and to implode the partisan gridlock that has shackled Washington and the rest of America — with the understanding that he would face the same assessment in four years if he does not succeed.

They did it to me, too. About 10 deleted comments and a suspended account, which remains suspended despite the editor emailing me and saying if I kept it clean, he'd reinstate my account. There wasn't anything NOT "clean" that I posted. See http://westfordforum.com for more. In case this gets deleted and they suspend this account, too.

They did it to me, too. About 10 deleted comments and a suspended account, which remains suspended despite the editor emailing me and saying if I kept it clean, he'd reinstate my account. There wasn't anything NOT "clean" that I posted. See http://westfordforum.com for more. In case this gets deleted and they suspend this account, too.

They did it to me, too. About 10 deleted comments and a suspended account, which remains suspended despite the editor emailing me and saying if I kept it clean, he'd reinstate my account. There wasn't anything NOT "clean" that I posted. See http://westfordforum.com for more. In case this gets deleted and they suspend this account, too.

...which is different from Catholics and Muslims how?

good point AM

FJ you should grab on with both hands because the wind is supposed to pick-up!

It isn't heaven, it's Kolob, you rule a celestial body in your special underwear over your family and any post-mortem baptized family members. Any questions, just ask. I grew up in that church, hearing all about how people of color were cursed by God and other such nonsense.

It's just one editor, in Westford, who has the touchy delete key. After one of Vincent's never ending rants, I posted a reply that said "Vincent, have you gone totally around the bend?" That post was deleted for violation Patch's terms. When I complained about it, I was told that it was a violation because "it addressed another poster without commenting on an issue", or some drivel like that. Ialso complained that if you didn't want unattributed comments posted, then you should not have changed the policy to allow posting by pseudonyms. The reply was that they had no control over that - that it was done at a higher level. What do you want to bet this particular editor was a hall monitor in grade school? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6..........counting down to suspension.

Hi Dave and Kate,

The only things being removed are things that violate the terms of use. Until recently, things got out of control so we're all stepping up moderation here on these threads.

Thanks for your comments.

This is what Andrew sent me:
I felt I had no choice but to suspend your account because you continued to question me and my fellow editors' attempts to try and keep at least some calm in that difficult thread. We have enough on our plate, and you're not alone when it has come to having accounts suspended, so this isn't a matter of favoritism.

Most of your comments are fine. But I told you to stop when it came to those particular comments you made that violated the TOS, and you did not stop. If you can respect what I say when I ask you to refrain from making the types of comments you were making, I can unsuspend your account.

If not, I wish you the best of luck in the future.
--------------------
Note, it sounds as though he simply does not like it when you question his authority - which isn't a violation of the TOS. He also has failed to unsuspend my account, as he said, despite not posting ANYTHING in violation of Patch's TOS. I had four initial posts which contained profanity, one of which I edited and re-posted. NOTHING subsequent to that contained anything profane or personally attacking. To date, 10 deleted posts and one suspension.

Edited to add: Make that TWO suspended accounts, still NO additional TOS violations by the user. Oh, and a couple more deletions.

Dave, be fair: I'm the one who replied to you privately about what Patch's Terms of Use previously stated, what they state now and what that means vis-à-vis what we can enforce and how. While you bemoan the use of pseudonyms, I see you've changed your name to simply "Dave," which is effectively a pseudonym, so what's good for the goose, I guess—not that there's anything wrong with that. And really, "a hall monitor in grade school?" Come on Dave, you're better than that.

I'm always available to answer any questions about the Terms of Use or otherwise at danield@patch.com, as is any Patch editor—simply click on their name and you'll see their email address, where you can contact them directly, rather than in the comments, which I find is usually a more effective manner of coming to a resolution on any given issue.

Okay, it's about fairness. I thought the terms of use were clear enough. If I violated some kind of confidence by paraphrasing what I was told, I apologize, but you'll have to tell me exactly what that was. As for pseudonyms, I only changed to "Dave" when it because clear that the majority of posters were using pseudonyms, ala Melrose Messages. Now you be fair - have I ever posted anything under "Dave" that I would not have posted under "Dave Gray"?
Sorry that you didn't appreciate the hall monitor crack. Apparently I'm not better than that - I still think it was accurately descriptive.

Oh no, you didn't violate any sort of confidence at all. I just think that conversation is better suited to direct, private communication, rather than effectively hijacking a comment thread on some other topic (that's not the intention, but intent and outcome are rarely coincident). And no, your comments have been consistent, regardless of what your screen name is—just pointing out the (admittedly superficial) incongruity. And sorry, no, I don't appreciate cracks like that.

Sorry about that. You can take comfort in that had I been talking with some of my military and ex-military acquaintances, I would have used a different descriptor - one which we used often when describing an overbearing NCO or Officer. That would have been inappropriate for this forum, since it would have referenced the droppings of a domesticated fowl. Just my opinion - I have no problem with you disagreeing. I just call 'em like I see 'em. :)

Amber, as you're posting again, it appears that this situation has somewhat resolved itself as you have the ability to post. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at danield@patch.com. Otherwise, this thread is really supposed to be about the last presidential debate.

Although I'd add that if you email me today and I don't get back to you right away, Sandy is currently taking up most of my time this particular Monday. :)

Daniel - I just re-registered for my third account, my first two having been suspended. I will happily share with you, privately, my email communications with Andrew on this topic.

I'm TRYING to post about the debate. But I keep getting suspended for NOT violating the TOS! :)

"It will make very little difference if Obama or Romney wins this election, if Congress will not do what is best for the entire American population and cooperate with the President to ensure that this country is more stable financially."

-> I cannot argue with that, a leader who has a sane plan should try to pull both sides together to do what is in the best interest of the country, if some group fails to work due to political reasons then the leader should take the issue to the American people and then react accordingly. If I recall (and I think I do) this all happened with Mr 0-care, Mr 0 made more speeches on Mr 0-care than I can count. The majority of American people did not buy it so what did our prince, princess and Mr 0 do,... then the mid-term elections, ... the rest (and Mr 0's failures) are history.

"Mitt's learning curve"
-> now that is the definition desperation and VERy VERY funny!

If Mr 0 does win (and I DO NOT expect that): imagine the mess he will inherit, he will cry about it for the next 99 years :o

Mitt-mentum continues!

Vinny, I think I shall screen shot this and IF Mitt wins, I will print it out and wallpaper your car with it every time I hear Mitt on the news talking about the mess he inherited and how he needed time to get up to speed (para.).

p.s. The big signs should come down today, if Sandy doesn't take them down for us!

Other differences between the 2: Mitt does not make excuses, he lived in the dreaded private sector where the rule is produce or you are out of business. Also Mitt does not need/expect a grading curve in order to get 4 more years :o

Mitt-mentum continues!

Okay, I did laugh at the bit about Big Bird, I'll admit. Sign me up for flogging, Vinny. :p

TRUTH, you wish, show me one example of Mitt stooping near this level.

Mitt-mentum baby!

Vincent. I don't know how old you are, but you must be still in your adolescence state for believing that Mitt is superior to Obama, or vice versa.

yup, another example of: "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas -- maybe you just make some up!"

Mitt-mentum!

a Mitt-slide ;)

Mitt's plan is based on REALITY!

"threatening our national parks" -> WOW

sing along: "We haven't killed all the polar bears
But it's not for lack of trying "

Mitt-mentum continues!

Just like Reagan.

http://www.peakoilstories.com
Why Peak Oil Isn't Headline News
The corporations and politicians that control our media have a lot riding on keeping the subject of peak oil from going mainstream. Just look at who owns the outlets we get our news from. Fox News in owned in part by a Saudi Prince and a UAE holding company, and CBS is owned by companies such as GE and Westinghouse which have a large stake in the oil industry. Our entire false economy, and their share prices are built on the premise of unlimited growth and cheap oil. Our stock market and retirement plans depend on increased growth and if peak oil is really happening it means that our financial house of cards is going to fall. Our economy is 100% built on the back of cheap oil and stock values would plummet if the truth about oil depletion was made public. Even the leaders of oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia must now keep figures about their oil reserves secret lest their own citizens revolt when they find there is no future. (Read Matt Simmon's Book Twilight In The Desert"). As oilfields such as the Gwahar field in Saudi Arabia and Mexico's Cantarell field deplete rapidly the truth is finally coming out.

There is no REALITY in Mitt's plan! Get real.

I suppose you think GLOBAL WARMING is a falsity too! Along with pollution, asthma and the environment (ie National Parks, etc.). But hey what do you care about the future, you'll be dead from all your dirty fossil fuels. That's more of a reality pal!

Think longterm - your childrens children and not just about the few pennies in your wallet, MITT's and BIG OIL.

Time to invest in affordable renewable green energy solutions! Yes affordable! They are out there if you just take the time to LOOK.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/category/global-warming
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/us/sandy-climate-change/index.html

It's a foregone conclusion at this point, even amongst mainstream media (such as it is).

"First, according to US and Israeli intelligence, there is no evidence that Iran wants a bomb,"

-> WOW

"second"

-> WOW x 2, you don't see the difference between US/Israel with nukes vs Iran?

You have a good night.

Mitt-mentum!

@Paul,

I have not been following this whole thread because most of it is nonsense, Quasimodo is right about the two parties and candidates...but I did catch your comments....

Please don't write about what you know nothing about. Ron Paul is not an Isolationist!! Please understand what you are talking about before you write that nonsense!!

I would agree with you that Ron Paul's foreign policy is far from perfect (do you know anything that is perfect in politics?), but it's certainly not an isolationist policy, and it's a good beginning, compared to that of the other two final presidential candidates' policies, who represent the status quo.
1) How can the US be "THE world leader in economics" when it is the GREATEST debtor nation in the world? Didn’t you noticed lately that the EU GDP in now 7% greater than that of the US, and China's GDP is now right behind that of the US, and climbing, and will most likely surpass it over the next 5 years?
2) The world is now a giant market and as such everyone is involved with everyone else. But this involvement does not include invading or bombing at will other countries, or doing what euphemistically is called "nation building." More than 800 US military bases (large and small) around the World! The US military expenditures are equal to the 41% of the World military expenditures combine, and greater than the EU countries, China and Russia put together. Is that's what you call being "involved"? The rest of the World calls it by its real name: Imperialism.

Quasimodo:

Don't forget, the majority of Americans are in dire need of the basic Schoolhouse Rock video series to explain basic concepts at their education level. Most don't even understand the electoral college, or that the President is essentially a figurehead and it's the "lower" Congressional offices where the real power is.

The massive dumbing down of our public education system in favor of edufads and teaching to the test have seen to that.

Leonardo,
I applaud the fact that you attempt to raise the level of discourse, and while I cannot disagree with the use of "facts" until them become so by politicians, please do not try and tell me that this is the exclusive province of the rebublican party. There are too many "facts" presented by the other side to go into here. I would hope you can agree to this and if not, I will lose some of my faith in your view of the process for all the references to Machiavelli. The problem is many people hear what they want and use the pieces of information they hear to justify their view of the world. Many people start to believe what they hear if they hear it enough. Both parties play into this and that is why we are pounded over and over again with the same ads.

One man's "Mitt-mentum" is another man's "Machiavellianism" and "Too Many Mitts". the myths about Mitt have been clearly shattered in and since debate #1 (lots of groups, states, ... in play and republican enthusiasm is soaring, you don't have to be left behind jump on board!).

I clearly explained how Mitt will work with the Dems on the problems (something Mr 0 failed to do from day 1).

Mitt-mentum and Republican enthusiasm!

It's the illusion...er, delusion...of choice.

or conspiracy de jour ;)

Agreed. EC will give this state to Obama anyway, hands-down. Better off sending a clear message with your vote.

I'm on my third Patch account. ;)

There is no winning this debate - but the great thing about the debate is it keeps people's anger and frustration focused on partisanship rather than the government as a whole. (It's crazy.)

I see them way above, your last one started

Shay Kaisie
3:22 pm on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Hi Paul,
There are so many examples of abuses of the Patriots Act, that I do not have the time to post them all here. What I do suggest though is that you Google "Patriot Act abuses".

You can lead an extremist to water, but can't force him to drink. Especially when both sides prefer the Kool-Aid. Red or blue, pick your poison. ;)

Right. And with billions of barrels in storage, why is gas so darn expensive right now, other than to line the pockets of the Oil Lobby at the expense of the American consumer? If anything, gas should be cheaper. Of course, y'all blame Obama for that, though betting odds are you'll be the first in line to say, "the President doesn't control gas prices!" if Sir Kolob makes it in. :)