Romney has the most experience as a leader, by far more than Obama has. Obama is still learning 3 years into it by saying "he's getting better". LOL - a little late, Bucky.

Obama and democrats need to be voted out. They have staged a war on our economy that has almost DOUBLED our debt, no budgets for THREE years, FUDGED the numbers about unemployment, inflation, and jobs"saved". All these people do is spend money we don't have (up to $1.40 spent for every dollar earned). They wage class warfare against the rich when raising taxes would only bring in an additional 8% (that's an extra three cents per dollar, WOW!).

America has officially hit 100% of debt to GDP, that's in the same category as Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. If Obama is reelected, America's debt is on track to reach $21 TRILLION at the end of his second term and we WILL face a Greece type wall. I almost don't want Romney to win because all the libtards will then blame him for him for "economic destruction" that Obama is already causing.

I could call you a lot of things, unfortunately, rational is not among them!

Take a deep breath & how about some sources for your accusations there Carnac?

Feisty -

When Mitt spoke at CPAC four years ago, it was to announce he was dropping out of the race. What could he possibly tell them this year that would top that?

P.S. - I hear he's speaking two hours after Santorum - I suspect most of that crowd will still be sleeping off their red-meat overdose by the time he starts.....

Take a deep breath & how about some sources for your accusations there Carnac?

It's all pretty easy to find, Feisty. Google does wonderful things...

Here's a start for you. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Has all kinds of things including unemployment numbers, GDP figures, debt rate, etc. These numbers are all verifiable.

Irrational one,

Three years as president of the United States is pretty unique on anybody's resume. That is experience. He's done a remarkably fine job and has many accomplishments to his credit despite that pack of vipers in the opposition.

Romney has spent his life enriching himself at the expense of American workers' futures, and was one of those who brought on the recession in the first place. Then he takes his money and invests it outside the country. What a loser. He needs to take the flag pin out of his lapel.

I'm looking forward to the debates between President Obama and Flip Romney.

Wayne - Romney is a self-made millionaire, something that many people aspire to. To say Romney brought on the recession is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.

Obama's experience as president has been nothing short of failure. He had two years with a FULL democratic congress and did NOTHING to fix our debt, and in fact created more debt in three years than Bush did in eight. He's created the WORST tax ever on the poor ever through inflation. (Just compare food and gas prices to 3 years ago).

Hey (ir)Rational One, how much have you donated to Romney? Anything? if you did donate, in order for him to care, it would need to be a sizable amount. How a man worth billions of dollars can make anyone beleive that he knows about the plight of the middle class and he cares about them, makes me seriously wonder what you could be smoking.

It seems to me that saying that the Republicans care about the middle class (when they never have) is really just a smokescreen for "get Obama out of office" at any cost. Even if the cost is the middle class.

Rational, you left off the 60 vote requirement in the Senate, Democrats did not have 60 although they had a majority.....

........then of course, the prolific use of the filibuster by the GOP/TP.

Everything stalled!

Irrational one- All of your heroes are millionaires? That is so sad. His tactics did indeed along with a bunch of other piranhas like himself, bring down the economy. I don't have time to worship the wealthy or their "celebrity cribs." I don't envy them either. None of them know whether their "friends" love them or their money. The Democratic Congress as it turns out, was doing the right thing by investing in the country. All of you jackals think that taking money out of the economy and public service jobs while handing the savings over to millionaires is the answer. What a horrible, grievous joke! Your party has nothing of value for anyone but the top 10%. The one and only purpose of the republican party is top protect the wealth of people that already have it and to make sure that they get all of the power and the wealth. The pack of them remind me of those idiot mastermind criminals in 007 movies.

Just who to vote for .... hmmmm, the dreaded Washington Insider or the dreaded Washington Outsider? .... must feel good not to be a Republican.

@Chilled - On the contrary, they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a year. It wasn't until they tried to ram Obamacare down our throats (yea, that was the most important thing to pass during a depression) that Scott Brown from Mass. was put in to stop the madness.

Rational, you left off the 60 vote requirement in the Senate, Democrats did not have 60 although they had a majority.....

Chilled - you NAILED it!

Are they EVER going to give up repeating that BS?

Once again to dispel this myth;

http://538refugees.wordpress.com/

red-meat overdose by the time he starts.....

JoAnne,

I just hope it's served 'rare'! ;o)

@Wayne - First of all I'm Independent, so it's not "my party". Second, while I agree with taxing the rich, it would have only added roughly 3 cents per dollar spent. That is NOT worth the class warfare and a divided America that Obama incited.

Third, to think that BORROWING 40 cents for every dollars spent is "investing" in our country is just asinine. Remember, we have to pay that money back... (or go bankrupt).

@ Howard,

The Bible says the poor will always be with us, but it doesn't say the same for the middle class.

Irrational One,

You are definitely out of touch with reality, and the actual facts. Oh well you only have 5 more years of President Obama being in office to look forward to.

Rational On, Its parasites like you that complain about insurance. If you get sick and show up at a hospital without insurance and you can't pay your bill, those with insurance wind up paying it.

Howard,

You can be rich, and compassionate, people do it all the time.

You are right thetotas, but many got their money by stepping on people on their way up. There are many humanitarians out there with money as well, and they are supporting the president.

@Job1 - Ahh, so I'm "irrational" for wanting to be out of debt. That's what's wrong with this country and why we are in this economic mess. All the libtards here think borrowing = free money, wheeee!

Been there, done that, barely avoided bankruptcy myself and don't ever want to go back.

TO: RationalOne-674831 who wrote:

"Wayne - Romney is a self-made millionaire, something that many people aspire to. To say Romney brought on the recession is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.

Obama's experience as president has been nothing short of failure... He's created the WORST tax ever on the poor ever through inflation. (Just compare food and gas prices to 3 years ago)."

Did you have any credits that you wanted to pay to Republicans who are the real failures here. Have Republicans done ANYTHING to help the recovery effort? Of course not, we've got Republicans praying on a daily basis that unemployment will go up, not down because the GOP knows that Clinton was best President we ever had, now President Obama turns out to be a great President as well, we don't ever need no Republicans to come and destroy our economy AGAIN.

And if you're trying to say that Romney didn't benefit from the housing bust and/or the rescession, you don't know who you are talking about. Romney made millions and admitted it in debates with Newt Gingrich attacking him and vice versa because they BOTH benefitted from the rescession and they were both involved.

What Republicans have planned for Working Americans is just plain wrong -- Lower, stagnant wages and repeal of the minimum wage while, as you said, prices are going up.

It sure is strange to hear a Republican mention "inflation" with all that blathering on about "free market" and all.

Obama / Biden 2012

Hey Ration -- Tell them to quit stealing money out of the revenues to give tax breaks to a select few at the detriment of the many. That would lower the deficits/debt. Yes, they indeed "borrowed" the money give those tax breaks.

I almost don't want Romney to win because all the libtards will then blame him for him for "economic destruction" that Obama is already causing.

Well then, don't vote for Romney! Vote for Obama. Then you can continue to blame him. Have a nice day.

What did Romney do, if it's broke lets part that sucker out, so imagine what he'll do with our country, part it out, that's a nice thought ... Because he sure as hell can't fix what he can't understand ...

Steve Jobs had to have an FBI background check so should any candidate and it should be made readily available to any and all during their campaigns.

Don't trust Verify! They are public servants we are not government servants we pay them to work for us! Drug tests and FBI background checks!

RationalOne - Romney has no experience as a leader of anything but sending jobs to China. And, he has led at that. He is no more "self-made" than Bush. And if he is - he should do a remake. Your hero is a here today - not sure where tomorrow - fraud. You're much smarter not to brag about someone who is a total failure as a human being!

Your post indicates you have no idea of how government works. Please go back and sit at the children's table.

First of all I'm Independent, so it's not "my party".

Third, to think that BORROWING 40 cents for every dollars spent is "investing" in our country is just asinine. Remember, we have to pay that money back... (or go bankrupt).

Retional (?) One,

First, why does every extreme far right, Obama-hating, obvious Tea Partier claim to be independent? You are about as independent as Santorum.

Next, you are against BORROWING money to "invest" in our country? But you support Romney?

You do realize that for 25 years Romney used BORROWED money to "invest" in distressed companies, right? He then used their assets as collateral to pull out a loan, pay himself, lay off workers, take his increased "investment", and leave, letting the companies struggle and eventually go bankrupt.

His ENTIRE CAREER revolved around using BORROWED MONEY to make "investments". That is what Romney does.

So your answer to the problem of our country using borrowed money is to vote for a guy that has done that EXACT SAME THING in the private sector for 25 years?

Did you have any credits that you wanted to pay to Republicans who are the real failures here. Have Republicans done ANYTHING to help the recovery effort? Of course not, we've got Republicans praying on a daily basis that unemployment will go up, not down because the GOP knows that Clinton was best President we ever had, now President Obama turns out to be a great President as well, we don't ever need no Republicans to come and destroy our economy AGAIN.

First, I'm not a Republican, so your finely tuned spouting points are pointless. I respected Clinton because he at least signed "balanced" budgets for four years (in quotes because they were never truly balanced). Obama does NOT even HAVE a budget! He had the house for TWO years and NO BUDGET! Obama is the WORST president in a century (beat out only by Woodrow Wilson). I certainly don't want another Bush. And thankfully, Romney aint no Bush.

Dems & Republicans are BOTH just as guilty for the out of control spending in the past 10 years.

Balancing the budget by reducing spending should be the primary goal of all politicians, especially in light of the economic collapse in Greece.

The collapse in Greece PROVES that:

There is a finite limit to how much a country can borrow.

First, why does every extreme far right, Obama-hating, obvious Tea Partier claim to be independent? You are about as independent as Santorum.

Really? I didn't know Santorum was for eliminating the tax breaks on the rich? I didn't know Santorum was for the Dream Act? Geez, maybe I ought to become a Republican. LOL

I hated Bush, he was weak and caused a lot of the mess we are in. I hate Obama, he's worse and made it a mess on steroids.

The problem you are using with "investing" is that the money being spent by the current administration is it's NOT ACTUALLY INVESTING. There is no return by increasing government payrolls, putting money in rich people's pockets through subsidies, earmarks, and all the other unnecessary expenditures.

There is no return by increasing government payrolls, putting money in rich people's pockets through subsidies, earmarks, and all the other unnecessary expenditures.

And you think Romney will NOT put more money into government payrolls, or rich people's pockets, or continue unnecessary expenditures for all his lobbyist buddies?

You actually think he will change anything?

Ya... keep telling yourself that, buddy.

And you think Romney will NOT put more money into government payrolls, or rich people's pockets, or continue unnecessary expenditures for all his lobbyist buddies?

No guarantees, but I've got a better chance with Romney than I do with Obama. I KNOW Obama will continue to put more money into government payrolls, rich people's pockets, continue unnecessary expenditures for all his union and lobbyist buddies... Romney at least has a written "contract" and I'm betting he will stick with it.

Actually, Feisty, rational's numbers in his first post were pretty accurate. I don't agree with his analysis of why that has and is happening, but he's right. We are over 100 percent debt/GDP and if deficits aren't reduced we will punch over $20 trillion debt by 2016.

Greece is a little worse off. They are trying to figure a way back down to 120 percent debt/GDP, and in my view they aren't going to get there.

Also, Obama didn't almost double the debt. It was about $9 trillion when he took office, and it's at $15.3 right now. Bit of a stretch to call that almost doubling. But it ought to be sobering for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

How did we get here. Well, in terms of discretionary spending, the big ticket budget line has been defense. And when you factor in the Iraq war... good estimates are that Iraq has already cost us over a trillion, and likely will cost us another trillion in terms of repairing attrited or plain worn out equipment and veteran health costs. But let's look at what we've already spent - over a trillion, about 7 percent of our total debt, accumulated since the beginning of our national history (most since World War II, and it really started to accelerate during the Reagan Administration).

We've built a military that can partially police the world, and we'll pay for it down the road someday.

Entitlements are another big budget item, and about to get more ominous. Nothing unexpected here - we've known for 40 years that when baby boomers retire, we would have some budgetary pressures.

I will fault Obama for one thing. He added to the entitlement soup with national health care. I thought all along we should prove we can pay for the entitlement programs we've got before we look to add another one. I know he talked about that during the campaign, but honestly, I thought he was BSing because it was a Clinton hot topic.

Romney at least has a written "contract" and I'm betting he will stick with it.

Because he has proven to "stick" to what he says... right? Yes, Romney has NEVER flip-flopped on anything.

And even though his ENTIRE LIFE has been dedicated to putting MORE MONEY in the pockets of the rich (and his own pocket)... I'm sure this "contract" will override his lifelong actions.

Jesus Christ... how are people this gullible?

Thanks for the backup, Paul. While I agree with much of what you said, spending on wars accounts for only about $100 Billion/year over 10 years. Obama has run deficits greater than $1 TRILLION/year. That said, the wars have run roughly 1/10th of the deficit, or about 1/60th of TOTAL SPENDING in 2010 (not a significant factor in the scheme of things.) We definitely need to cut the military along with entitlements, but, honestly, I'm trying to figure out where all the money went! They don't make it easy.

@IndieParty - SO, you would rather go with the sure thing of Obama's increasing the debt, continuing to put more money into government payrolls, rich people's pockets, continue unnecessary expenditures for his union and lobbyist buddies? You would rather go for a sure thing to ensure we hit the "Greece Wall"? Dude! And you call me gullible... You are high on that kool-aid.

Rational - you might want to take a closer look at your source data, to ensure you're not being fed some politically motivated data.

When you factor in everything that was expended because of Iraq, the numbers go up quite a bit. For instance, we have numerous Reserve unit activations for optempo relief. That additional manpower cost is outside the emergency expenditures. Likewise, we revamped our entire light vehicle fleet to replace it with MRAP, which better survives IEDs. That procurement project alone is more than 1/60th the defense budget. Ammo is another big expense, and mostly covered outside the emergency expenditures.

Yes, Obama has had deficits of I think an average of $1.3 trillion a year (which doesn't account for the entire debt added because of accounting tricks all administrations since Reagan have done).

Like I getting at earlier, in terms of budget there was no way any president would have been successful the last few years. Revenue down, and there was a very real threat of financial collapse, dealt with over to different administrations.

Paul - Source data: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/recent_spending

Part of those accounting tricks is money used from the Social Security Trust Fund. That is why Clinton was truly running deficits while he was touting a balanced budget. In fact, Obama had to have been running deficits of $2+Trillion/year to get us to $15 Trillion in debt today...

Yes, the indirect costs of the war exceed the direct costs, but my whole overall point is that it STILL only accounts for a fraction of the spending. Where did the rest go?

I think it would be germane to consider that a good portion of Obama's deficits are due to 1.) decreased revenues because of the recession/depression due to people not working and not paying taxes; 2.) increased costs of supporting the millions who lost jobs with long-term unemployment benefits; 3.) the wars, all of which is carry-over from the Bush years.

The Obamacare is just now starting to kick in, so that will add to future deficits, not current ones. And lets not forget Bush's Medicare Part D, an unfunded entitlement (unlike basic Medicare and Social Security, which are funded by payroll taxes).

Certainly, there's room for improvement with the Obama spending program - he should have taken the Bowles-Simpson plan to heart. But all in all, I don't think it's fair to hang all of this on Obama.

Here's the kicker. Don't renew any of the Bush tax cuts, including the capital gains taxes - let them all revert back to Clinton era rates. To raise taxes on one segment of society (the rich) while letting everyone else off the hook raises legitimate questions of class warfare. We are all in this together. To those in the lower income ranges the tax increases will be minimal, they will be more substantial for the high earners, but the high earners, as an inverse function, benefited the most from the tax cuts. That will fatten the revenue stream significantly.

I have zillions of suggestions for cutting spending in less draconian ways which I won't go into here, but anything I can come up with, politicians presumably can come up with on their own.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I could call you a lot of things, unfortunately, rational is not among them!

Based on RationalOne-674831's blind passion for Romney, my guess is he/she is Mormon. With that said, I'd like to see research on Romney's recent pro-Catholic remarks regarding contraceptives versus Romney's record on this matter as governor, and why Romney isn't defending his own religion (LDS Hospital, BYU, etc.) in regard to labor laws and insurance coverage. Could it be that Romney will say anything to win against his new Catholic opponents, while still refusing to embrace his own religion in hope Evangelicals will forget?

Where did everyone go? This is an old thread.

Russell-2157151 -- You are correct about less revenue due to loss of property taxes and income taxes as a result of the Great Recession. However, you are wrong about unemployment, which is a drop in the bucket in the budget, and actually stimulates the economy with spending. Also you are wrong about the Affordable Health Care Act, which has already shown savings, and will not go into full effect until 2014.

The majority of the deficits is due to the continuation of GOP/Bush-era policies of unpaid wars and tax cuts for the rich.

I'd like to see research on Romney's recent pro-Catholic remarks regarding contraceptives versus Romney's record on this matter as governor, and why Romney isn't defending his own religion (LDS Hospital, BYU, etc.) in regard to labor laws and insurance coverage.

The LDS church does not prohibit contraceptives, unlike the Catholics, though it does frown on sex outside of marriage, and is opposed to gay marriage. Therefore, there is no conflict with providing contraceptives in insurance plans for LDS church owned businesses.

Romney's statements on that Catholic vs. Contraceptive issue is more of a political attack against Obama than actual support for the Catholic church.

Guys.....all of your online bickering is irrelevant. The only numbers that matter at this point are poll numbers, and I think everyone can agree that the odds of Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum winning a general election are pretty remote.

Obama's national approval rating is pretty much in line with where the vote was in 2008; whereas no one really likes Romney, they generally hate Gingrich, and don't really know who Santorum is. That isn't even taking into account the very well run campaign machine Obama offered in 2008, and a list of inarguable accomplishments over the past 3 years. Or the fact that the GOP is 70% self-identified Christians, while Romney is Mormon and Gingrich is a serial unfaithful divorcee.

Further, everyone who has been dead on in the past many elections pins Obama as a close, but comfortable winner in November. Every one of the states with recent primary elections has seen a 10 - 20% reduction of voter turnout, meaning the same will probably happen in November. Those are the facts. Look em up if you don't believe me. "Its liberals fault!....No, its conservatives fault!" arguments can and will go on all day, but reality matters.

The only reason Romney can call himself an outsider is that he is not savvy enough to have ever gotten on the inside & I sure hope he never does.

ROMNEY .......AN "OUTSIDER" ???????????????????

What Romney meant to say was....

"While the American economy continued the Bush slide, while we were fighting two unfunded wars, and while our debt and our deficit continued to climb, putting America in peril, MY MONEY was outside the country in banks in Switzerland and the Bahamas. That's why I'm considered an outsider."

As a true Independent, I find the rhetoric from some of the post intriguing. I see a lot of "talking points" with no substance or real proof to back up their claims aside from opinionated websites searched from Google. The real problem for Romney, in my opinion, is that he is aligning himself with the same people that McCain did and look what happen, McCain lost because he listened to the "establishment". I honestly believe that if McCain had kept his "Maverick" stance throughout the campaign, he would have won the election easily. With that said, Romney, in my opinion is setting himself up for failure and here's why:

1: While he's trying so hard to win the conservative votes, he is further distancing himself from the independents and some democrats that would consider voting for him in the general election. If he does win the nomination, he would definitely come off as a flip flopper as he will have to try and work his way back to the middle in order to win over some independents which will upset a lot of conservatives which would in turn cause them to either stay home and not vote or even vote for Obama.

2: Regardless of what most people think, the economy IS improving which is a bad sign for republicans. The flip side is that democrats are not out the woods either as they have yet to define themselves while they continue to distance themselves away from the president. I would love to see proof of the claims that Mr. Obama is the worst president ever when he, AGAIN, in my opinion, has done everything he can to try and move this economy in the right direction while dealing with a republican establishment who have made it clear that it is NOT jobs that are their focus BUT making Obama a one term president.

3: As much money that is being raised, it can safely be said that both Romney and Obama plan to buy this election. This will easily be one of the most costly election campaigns in history which will seriously, AGAIN, in my opinion, call on a referendum on campaign funds and how they can be raised and spent. I would personally like to see each a law which states that each candidate running for whatever office, whether state, local or federal, allotted a specific amount of funds and cannot exceed that amount to wage a campaign. THEN we will be able to see who is REALLY fiscally responsible and can use those funds effectively to win the office that they seek.

Bottom line, If all you have is "talking points" to add the conversation, you are no more credible than the website/media station/newspaper or person you get it from.

I see that Mitt's fundraiser tonight is at the Marriott Hotel----that would be the same corporation where Mitt served on the Board of Directors, collecting over $113,000 in fees in 2010. That is like an outsider to me.

That is like an outsider to me.

SF - wonder if Willard negotiated a 'discount'?

The founder of Marriott was a friend of Mitt's dad (maybe he learned carpentry in their hotels) and Mitt is named for him. He's served on their Board twice, each time resigning when he was gearing up to run for President. I hope the loss of those fees didn't hurt him too much.

Romney is no outsider. He picked up half of George Bush's neo-con team six months ago.

Bush=Romney. Good a reason as any why 75% of Republicans can't stand him.

Romney is no Bush. Maybe that's why 60+% of us Independents like him.

rationalone ---- independent my foot! you're reich wing.

Independents are better off with Ron Paul. Going along with Romney is a stupid thing to do.

I really wish the ultra libbies on this site had something intelligent to add to the discussion besides feisty snarky insults and nonsense references to blog sites where their lefty mantra is repeated until the supplicants are brain dead. Yes, brain dead!

& I wish that you would go away.

The nation, and its policy, are secular to the core. Who are you kidding?

I agree. They fight tooth and nail against the rights of those they disagree with. Santorum is one of those religious nut hipocrites who says he believes in freedom. And then he talks about "protecting traditional marriage" and fights against freedoms.

TOG,

I want to know how Mr. Romney can make the claim of "outsider" with a straight face? And, having said that, how can the audience not respond in laughter?

Phine!

What happened to the Cosmo? That was a very cool glass.

Tired Old Guy -

I happily stand corrected - one "Heart-attack-on-a-plate" special coming right up!

I was ready for a blast from last spring. My mind wandered back to Roatan! Ergo, a picture from Roatan! (one of my favorite and most beautiful places in the world)

Right on, phine.

JoAnne ... not to worry, if they can't afford insurance after their heart attacks, Mitt's safety net will catch them.

phinephancy - I did some scuba diving in Roatan. It's been a while and I'm not sure if things have changed a lot. But, it's gorgeous! (When I went there the plane landed on the beach - see, I said it was a long time ago). We did some night diving and saw the sea cucumberss - kinda scary! But gorgeous!

Because it never happened. George Who??? Why take responsibility for your actions when blaming others is so much easier. Jan 2001 through Jan 2009 just did not happen. Just like Reagan, I can't remember.

berndog1 ... remember the TV series "Dallas"? Bobby's death? Turned out to be just a dream after an entire season of his being dead. Dallas ... hmmm ... Texas ... hmmm.

Maybe it's selective amnesia, maybe it's Alzheimers (Reagan had it), or maybe it's just re-writing history, as in Mitt claiming to be the son of a carpenter.

We can only hope that American voters are clear-eyed enough to see through all the B.S. and re-elect Barack Obama.

They don't even mention Bush by name anymore. And, have you noticed how he AND Cheney are strangely silent lately? Maybe the boogie man got them both??? Nah - darn it!

*shhhhh* They're pretending Bush didn't exist, let alone start a war with a lie, wreck our economy, and make America lose face all over the world.

It's so handy to blame it all on the guy who got stuck holding the bag.

Dubya was speaking to the Automobile Dealers Assoc. in Las Vegas the other day and took credit for the bail-out of the banksters, GM and Chrysler. How come the ABO crowd isn't commenting on that...maybe because it would go against their narrative? These folks will say they weren't fans of the Bush but voted for him twice?

one way or another, I'm voting for the guy. The other three goofballs are all the same if you break it down. RP is the only one truly speaking facts, and resolutions to the problems we have and what we'll face in the future

Global Babble ... you sound like ya got a gun. This is what I want you to do ... make sure it is loaded and aim it at your keyboard ... done that? Good! ,,, now squeeze the trigger repeatedly ... Good boy.

Global,

That kind of talk is not very productive.

Global Babble ... you sound like ya got a gun.

Kudos ideolog for being able to interpret that hot mess!

ideology & thetotas ... maybe it's better for everyone if he is inside typing ... don't know that I would want to run into him on the street.

Just plain crazy talk.

Since the conservatives can't find enough bad enough about President Obama, they start telling lies- over and over and over again- until the sheep start baa-ing it back.

Now, just say it. It is very simple: Barack Obama was born in the United States. Barack Obama is a Christian. Barack Obama is a wonderful family man. Barack Obama is doing what he can for the middle class.................

Can Ted Kaczynski post comments on here from prison???

Global - What???????

Sarah M, should add, Obama has not closed GITMO, he has not lowered the unemployment to acceptable levels, he has not ended the war in Afghanistan, he has not fixed the economy, he has not lowered the US debt. He has raised taxes on the middle class and he has assassinated Americans without trial. And he has decided to change what people can believe in religiously (violation of 1st Ammendment). Want more?

Obama has not closed GITMO, he has not lowered the unemployment to acceptable levels, he has not ended the war in Afghanistan, he has not fixed the economy, he has not lowered the US debt.

Due entirely to Republican opposition. They are the ones that wouldn't let him transfer Gitmo prisoners to other prisons, or allow them to be tried in US courts. They've been opposing his jobs programs (necessary to boost the economy) and they've refused to raise taxes sufficient to reduce the US debt (not surprising, really, Republicans nearly doubled the National debt when they were in power from 2001 to 2007 with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases)

He has raised taxes on the middle class

Nope, the Bush tax cuts are still in effect, part of the reason why deficits are so large, so no tax increase. Obama did sign a temporary tax reduction on payroll taxes that benefit mainly the working class, a reduction the Republicans were reluctant to extend. Oh, but maybe you don't consider the working class to be "middle class".

he has assassinated Americans without trial.

Nope. Our military killed an "american citizen" that had turned traitor and was working for the enemy, and was in a war zone. You really want to coddle terrorist traitors and accuse our Soldiers of being assassins? Apparently so, if you can "blame Obama".

he has decided to change what people can believe in religiously

Nope again. People are still free to believe what they want, even Catholics, but Catholics (or any other religion) doesn't have a right to impose their religious rules on non-members. Non-Catholics that are working for a Catholic affiliated corporation cannot be denied contraceptives simply because that Church doesn't approve. Please note that Catholics are still free to believe contraceptives are sinful, and disapprove vocally, but that's their own rules, not the law for everyone.

Shooting down Teapublican nonsense sure can be easy sometimes!

Excellent rebuttal, CM!

He never said he didn't have contacts in Washington. He said he never worked in Washington. And he worked rebuilding companies that were failing, not cutting throats.

And he worked rebuilding companies that were failing, not cutting throats.

Not literally, no, he didn't actually "cut throats" - or rebuild companies.

Bain would buy a controlling share of a company and charge extravagant "management fees" even when they mis-managed the company. They'd lay off people to cut costs, temporarily boosting the profit margin, use that to borrow more money to pay more "management fees" to themselves, then they spun off debt laden companies that would eventually go bankrupt. Not surprisingly, Romney doesn't count those "later bankruptcies" as his "job killers". The only real surprise is a few companies managed to survive their Bain encounter, somehow managing to pay off the heavy debt load and go on to turn a profit.

No matter what eventually happened to a Bain purchased company, Bain and Romney always made millions, never lost a dime.

daniel cooper: To elect Ron Paul would set the counrty back 150 years plus his real agenda he is keeping undercover by the request of Glover Norquist who is as illiterate as you can get.

The total cost for the war on terror since 2001 is $931,441,425,768. That is the cumulative total for Iraq and Afghanistan.

30 US citizens have died from terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.
In comparison 300,000 Americans die of obesity every year.

40,000 Americans per year die of car accidents.

550,000 Americans per year die of cancer.

More Americans have died from squirrel and raccoon attacks than have died from terrorism since 9/11.

Americans are dying because they are fat, not because of terrorism.

why are we not declaring a war on squirrels and raccoons?
Why aren't we spending trillions to fight the big mack value pack?
How come we bailed out GM instead of declaring war on them?

daniel cooper: Have you been hanging out with Rick Perry of Texas Lately because you sound just like him.

Rick Perry's a complete moron, which Daniel's not.

No, Daniel is a complete moron.

The $900B he quotes is the direct spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, since George W. Bush, in his infinite wisdom, did not budget anything for the wars, every bit of that cost aws added to our national debt. The interest on that debt will continue to add up for many years to come. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. It is just the gift that keeps on giving. In addition, his number does not include a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.

No matter how you look at it, we will be paying for these two useless wars for a loooong time to come. The $900B number that Daniel mentions is just a downpayment.

And why? You do realize that Afghanistan is just a little smaller than Texas and Iraq is about the size of California. WWI lasted about 4 years; WWII lasted about 6 years. We have been involved with Afgahnistan and Iraq for about 10 years now. We spent as much time in these two little countries as two major global wars. We had inept idiots and morons running these wars.

And we are STILL $15 trillion in debt and over 8% unemployed!

The debt needs to be reduced ASAP. It's impossible to have a good economy when the debt is so massive. Printing money will just make things worse in the long run. Remember what happened in Zimbabwe? It started with money-printing.

The problem isn't the amount of debt, (most of which were acquired under Republican presidents, BTW), but rather, what was done with the money that was borrowed.

If that borrowed money were used for things that brought a "return on investment", boosting the economy and increasing revenue sufficient to eventually pay off the debt, then it would actually be a good thing. Many businesses borrow money for that kind of reason, to improve their business and increase their profits.

Borrowing money to cover unexpected emergencies can be acceptable, if afterwards efforts are made to pay off that debt, to prepare in case another emergency should come along.

Unfortunately, the 4.9 trillion dollars borrowed during the Bush administration didn't do anything to boost the economy, instead it went to finance an un-necessary war, boondoggles to politically connected corporations, and tax cuts for the rich. Emergencies? Well, 9/11 and the anti-terrorist activities might count as emergency expenditures, but years afterwards the Bush administration still made no effort to pay off that debt.

^ Most Americans agree.

Actually most Republicans agree, but Karl Rove and the GOP establishment intends to force Romney down their throats.

Hey GOP lackeys. Keep 'ur chin up! :)

By your post I see insanity is alive and well on the Left.

Romney, like all the other GOP candidates, has support because people recognize we can't possibly endure another 4 years of Obama. It's that simple. Even with 3+ years of on-the-job training, Obama is still in over his head. He's accomplished nothing positive for the American people, just ballooned their debt burden for generations to come.

Here is a few reason why you want Crazy Ron Paul

CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:

Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker

Good idea and add this on to your reasons not to vote for RP

www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things-non-paul-voters-are-basically-saying/

So, whether they realize it or not, here are 26 things non-Paul supporters appear to be saying.

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

(7) The federal government is much too involved in education, where it has no constitutional role. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported expanding the Department of Education and favored the No Child Left Behind Act.

(8) Even though practically everyone was caught by surprise in the 2008 financial crisis, which we are still reeling from, it’s a good idea not to vote for the one man in politics who predicted exactly what was bound to unfold, all the way back in 2001.

(9) I am not impressed by a candidate who inspires people, especially young ones, to read the great economists and political philosophers.

(10) I am concerned about taxes. Therefore, I will not vote for the one candidate who has never supported a tax increase.

(11) I believe it is conservative to support bringing the Enlightenment to Afghanistan via military intervention.

(12) Even though I lost half my retirement portfolio when the economy crashed from the sugar high the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates put it on, I would like to vote for someone who is not really interested in the Federal Reserve.

(13) Even though 50 years of the embargo on Cuba did nothing to undermine Fidel Castro, and in fact handed him a perfect excuse for all the failures of socialism, I favor continuing this policy.

(14) If someone has a drug problem, prison *abuse is the best solution I can think of.

(15) Even though the Constitution had to be amended to allow for alcohol prohibition, and even though I claim to care about the Constitution, I don’t mind that there’s no constitutional authorization for the war on drugs, and I will punish at the polls anyone who favors the constitutional solution of returning the issue to the states.

(16) I believe only a “liberal” would think it was inhumane to keep essential items out of Iraq in the 1990s, even though one of the first people to protest this policy was Pat Buchanan.

(17) The Brookings Institution says Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America was an insignificant nibbling around the edges. I favor people who support insignificant nibbling around the edges, as long as they occasionally trick me with a nice speech.

(18) I am deeply concerned about radical Islam, so it was a good idea to depose the secular Saddam Hussein — who was so despised by Islamists that Osama bin Laden himself offered to fight against him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and replace him with a Shiite regime friendly with Iran, while also bringing about a new Iraqi constitution that makes Islam the state religion and forbids any law that contradicts its teachings.

(19) Indefinite detention for U.S. citizens seems like nothing to be worried about, especially since our political class is so trustworthy that it could never abuse such a power.

(20) Following up on (19), I believe Thomas Jefferson was just being paranoid when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

(21) Even though the war in Iraq was based on crude propaganda I would have laughed at if the Soviet Union had peddled it, and even though the result has been hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, four million people displaced, trillions of dollars down the drain, tens of thousands of serious injuries among American servicemen and an epidemic of suicide throughout the military, not to mention the ruination of America’s reputation in the world, I see no reason to be skeptical when the same people who peddled that fiasco urge me to support yet another war as my country is going bankrupt.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

(24) I want to be spoken to like this: “My fellow Americans, you are the awesomest of the awesome, and the only reason anyone in the world might be unhappy with your government is because of your sheer awesomeness.”

(25) I think it’s a good idea to vote for Mitt Romney, whose top three donors are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley, and a bad idea to vote for Ron Paul, whose top three donors are the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.

(26) I have not been exploited enough by the cozy relationship between large financial firms and the U.S. government, and I would like to see it continue.

UPDATE: Some people are saying, “I oppose Ron Paul for different reasons. Why, he’ll force little kids to work in mines for 30 cents a day, he’ll destroy the environment, he’ll fire many of our selfless public servants, he believes in ‘deregulation,’” etc. Or, on the right, I hear, “He’s great on domestic policy, but he should be more pro-war.” Want replies to those?

Go to the above mentioned website or goggle 26 things non- Ron Paul voters are saying. And its Clampett not Clampit. And there is nothing wrong with having a "waste not, want not" in our White house, now is there? Because I am sick and tired of "waste lots, want more" Presidents! Not all hillbillies are bad and I would sooner trust a hillbilly than a career politician. Give the Doctor a chance bc we have proof he actually WORKED!!!

* statement changed bc of harsh language.

I LOVE this post! Great job, TexasFighterGal!

A registered Dem who shamefully voted for Obama, I know that we need Ron Paul as president. I don't know how many times I have posted about Obama extending Patriot Act and TSA, signed NDAA, signed EO 13575, authorized FAA to reconfigure US air space for drone use, authorized continuation of Fast and Furious, etc. etc., and each time fell on deaf ears.

I am thoroughly convinced that as long as people continue to receive their welfare checks, they couldn't care less if their own neighbor or family member ends up in the gutter.

Ron Paul 2012!