fedupwiththissite If your fed up with this site, why are you here? I would like a answer on that one.

Trying to educate you communist moochers.

Truth is though, the campaign donations are usually a reflection of how much the public likes the candidate. Obama got more donations from the filthy rich pukes and everyone else, because they were in proportion just as excited for his candidacy as the rest of the country.

When you do better with the overall populace, that means you're going to do better with the people who donate too, normally. More overall supporters = more overall donors.

Actually the money flows towards a winner. Barry is looking pretty bad and nobody wants to waste money (cough,cough stimulus). Loving the Barry inspired class warfare. The rich want to destroy the middle class? I think the rich may realize they can make more money if middle class people buy more stuff and would therefore just want a strong economy. That might be to much common sense for msnbc viewers.

I more or less support him, although I won't vote presidentially this time around.

No, they don't restrict freedoms out there, that's crap. It's very all-americany out there. Very all-americany. Now it is a cult this is true, but these are some good, good cultists.

Those Osmonds scared the crap out of me, one claimed to be a little bit country while the other was a little bit rock and roll!! Anti-American propaganda!!!!

Some might describe the Osmonds as "comfortably cheesy".

Look Demoncats, Romney and Wife are the type of neighbors you could leave your kids with while you go to Hawaii and rest assured, they'd take all their vitamins and brush their teeth everynight while you're away.

And you think a man with an Islamic terrorist name and background like Barack Hussein Obama could be better? I'd take a Mormon over a guy from the Islamic terrorist tradition anytime?

Obama not a terrorist - so what? You condemn Romney just because he is a Mormon so I can condemn Obama for having an Islamic name!

WATER: Oh, I see. Now you judge people by their name??? How enlightened of you. And who said that the Right was made up largely of ignorant bigots?

Unfettered capitalism would be a great thing. The average wage would be up to $80,000 a year by now. Unfortunately, the Demoncats have been siphoning off 40% or more of the economy into their failed welfare state, so wages are nowhere near that.

If we'd stuck through the Great Depression with what made us the richest country in the world by far up to that time, and stayed a free economy ever since, avg wages would be 80K/year or more. Unfortunately, when we hit down cycles in the economy, Demoncats are really good at manipulating human suffering into making disastrous changes in the free market and making it less free, and making us all poorer in the long run.

Er them corporations'll getcha. Please, Coca-Cola don't hurt me and make me buy your pop when I really want Mt. Dew!

chestypuller Show some proof of your statement.

Is Corporatocracy anything like Hollywoodocracy? Certainly Obama is doing most all his fundraising among those elitist millionaires - a real man of the people he is. His net worth is now over $10 million and he hasn't had a real job in his life! Just how did he amass so much on a community organizer salary anyway?

And give us a break Smitty. You liberals have filled this page with lies about Romney with no effort to prove anything - beginning once again, as so often, with the Musty Red Puke head from Rozelle.

Chesty is correct. History is the proof. FDR used the Great Depression to force through massive re-distribution of wealth and to institute social programs with the intent of creating a perpetually dependent voting bloc (that's you democrats). He argued that these programs would get us out of the GD but they didn't work (WW2 and other factors lifted the GD). Also consider how Federal income taxes (which didn't exist in the 1800's) took money from people to create the bloated, wasteful Gov't we have today. FDR is the left's hero...that may be all you need to know.

Smitty Boy, I found one good chart!

Real Wages (after inflation) increased by about 60% in between 1870 and 1900 for non-farm workers, even though we had one bad recession during that time period.

Avg real wage, adjusted for inflation, increased from about $380 to $600/year between 1870 and 1900.

http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/ftap/Charts6_Economic_Trends.html

Today, this would be like, if a $20,000 wage in $1980 is equivalent to a $50,000 wage today, a real wage increase over that time of 60% would mean you make $80,000/year. You not only kept pace with inflation, but increased 60% on top of that.

There's less money in our economy because lie-berals siphon off so much for the welfare state.

And a loaf of bread would cost $100.00.

hahahahahhah "the backs of the middle class" like they even pay 1/5th the taxes that the rich do.

It's the backs of the rich, Demoncats, that's who the weight of the federal govt is on, you know that top 10% that pay 70% of federal income tax.

Save us your fairytales about budgets being fixed on the "backs of the poor" who pay nothing, or the "backs of the middle class" now that you suddenly decided a few years ago to start sucking up to them, instead of the poor.

Ah yes -

Its all the fault of Citizens United....all that dirty money coming in to politics....

Until all liberals and democrats cease taking PAC/Super pac money, or even until just President Obama stops taking the money from super pacs, all I hear when a democrat or liberal complains about money in politics is hypocritical whining.

Or is taking money from wealthy contributors actually wrong to do? Perhaps you think that taking money at fundraisers in Holly wood is perfectly fine, but let a wealthy conservative donate money and that is completely wrong.

Either way, hypocrisy shines out from your claim of unlimited financial resources.

POINTS: You're going to compare the money from Hollywood with bigtime corporate money and folks like the Koch Brothers who are worth 50 BILLION DOLLARS??? Name me a union or a movie star who can even come close to that kind of money, I defy you.

I would like to see ALL MONEY out of politics. Don't you think that most thought not all corporate heads and rich private business owners are going to support a guy like Romney, not because they like him but they think they will personally gain from his election? They are motivated essentially by greed, nothing more. The "Hollywood Elit" are really voting agains their best interests. They know that with Obama they will most likely pay higher taxes but being REAL PATRIOTS, not the phoney, flag waving kind, who have all the money in the world and yet bitch incessantly about taxes.

If you want people like the Koch Brothers running this country along with that nutcase billionaire in Las Vegas, Sheldon Adelson who has said he's willing to kick in 100 Million of his own personal fortune running this country, quite literally owning the president then by all means support Citizens United. If you don't think that's best for our country, that the huge influx of UNDOCUMENTED MONEY into our politics is not a good thing and corrupts our politics, political views aside, then you'll work to undo this horrendous piece of legislation.

Intrepid -

I suspect you are missing the forest for the trees here.

The money is already in politics, and has been for quite some time, on both sides.

My objection is not to any fund raisers done by any candidate- my objection is to the idea that somehow fund raising by President Obama is perfectly fine, but fund raising by Romney is inherently wrong

To tell me that that this makes me unpatriotic is beneath you, quite frankly - you are smarter and better than that.

And yes - I will compare money from Hollywood to corporate money all day, any time, unless somehow a dollar is not a dollar anymore, based on its source.

And please - tell me exactly how it is that Sheldon Adelson is going to personally ruin this country, having "literally" bought the presidency?

Or perhaps you think that George Clooney is a better choice to ruin this country....or perhaps Soros?

Please privatize Medi-Scare and Social Security!!! Pleasepleaseplease.

Everyone here who has a grandma still alive...she'd be 100K richer if her SS money had been invested in the stock market her whole life, even factoring in the downturns.

You notice the filthy rich puke liberals like Nancy Pelosi put their money in the stock market and make millions...it's just too "scary" for you little people.

Dow Jones in the 80's: 3,000. Dow Jones today, even after the huge downturn in 09: 12,000+

Thanks comrade. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

OMG - this post again. I think it is the only thing he has ever written and he posts it two or three times a week.

Was it the great progressive alternative to try to frame the gun shops on the border by sending all those guns into the Mexican cartels and then trying to claim the gun shops sold them? Obama and Holder would have gotten away with this criminal assault on the 2d Amendment if it were not for a whistle blower. And now he exerts executive privilege to stop the truth from coming out.

This election is a choice between a man of integrity with real business experience and executive branch experience versus a petulant incompetent man-child with the morals of a snake!

dls -

I agree with one thing you said - this election is a moral choice.

The choice is this, and really is not much more complicated than this - do we have the right, morally, to continue to spend the money that future generations should have? Or do we have a moral obligation to stop mortgaging our grandchildren?

Plenty of blame to go around in that situation, to be sure - but, you chose to put it in terms of morality. So, morally - which do you choose? I have to have mine, so to heck with the future - that is the current liberal perspective on entitlements. Or, do you choose it wont be a lot of fun for anyone, but we must at long last become responsible in order to attempt to secure a future, and in that everyone must sacrifice a little bit - the current conservative perspective.

Seems an obvious moral choice to me, but you seem to have the opposite opinion. Fair enough - you have every right to be incorrect.

POINTS: Now you're concerned with our deficit??? How convenient, now with a Democrat in the White House. Where the hell were all the Tea Crazies during Bush's 8 years of reckless spending coupled with unwarranted tax cuts ran up the deficit like there was no tomorrow???

Bill Clinton handed Bush a balanced budget along with a surplus. 8 years later, Bush handed Obama the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. And now you're a fiscal hawk, with the economy in tatters. The time to have spoken out was when Bush had the brilliant idea of starting not 1 but 2 wars, both of them unfunded coupled with grossly irresponsible tax cuts, a sure recipe for disaster along with deregulation of the finance markets.

Your narrative of the Liberal philosophy is the typical Republican viewpoint on this, that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible and that the GOP are the strict fiscal hawks. However, the facts don't bear that out. If 8 years of Bush proved anything conclusively is that Republicans are no more fiscally responsible and if anything, even worse than Democrats.

Good evening, Intrepid -

Hope you are having a good weekend so far!

Just a couple of little things here for you - first, I did not choose to frame this as a moral choice, but dls did, so I chose to respond from the moral perspective

Second - I did say that there is plenty of blame to go around - both parties, and all recent administrations, have failed us all enormously in the sense of allowing massive fiscal issues to go unresolved, if not actively worsened them. That is why I said that it is "at long last" time to have some responsibility.

You also might want to note that I did say the current conservative position, not the position of "conservatives" that led to the 2 unfunded wars.

I would also take some note of the fact that the unfunded wars you refer to were at their inception overwhelmingly supported by the public and both parties, so the responsibility for those is not exclusively republican.

As far as the grossly irresponsible tax cuts, the boat has sailed on republican total responsibility for those, although I agree it originated from the republicans, and I thought it was a bad idea at the time. President Obama is talking about extending them, again, so at this point, they have become his problem to defend.

Convenient? Not in any way - I would say that fiscal reponsibility is not going to be fun for much of anybody for a while, which is decidedly inconvenient, regardless of who is in the White House.

As far as my narrative about the liberal philosophy - I was not in fact claiming that democrats in general are fiscally irresponsible, any more than I was claiming that republicans are more fiscally responsible.

I was merely attempting to say this - we all know that a cliff is ahead, and that both spending and lack of revenue are a part of that equation. Spending at our current levels is going to have consequences that our children and beyond will have to deal with, and morally, I think that is wrong.

We will likely disagree on this, but I will say it anyway - blaming Bush, and Bush alone, for the economic situation that President Obama started with, is no more logical than blaming President Obama for not entirely fixing it by now. While Bush did leave office with an economic mess, the source of those economic issues is not exclusively republican, nor was it actually entirely his fault.

If you blame Bush alone for that, then you must consequently blame Obama alone for our current situation.

As far as claiming that I am a fiscal hawk, while I can see how you would react like that, it happens to be untrue. In point of fact, unlike hard core republican/Tea Party types, I can see that increased revenues must happen as well as true cuts in spending - I simply think that the equation does not mean that this necessarily means that tax rates must increase - for instance -while i oppose an overall tax rate increase, I believe that exemptions must be reduced seriously, and that the tax cuts must be done away with.

A final point - the issue was raised as a moral question, which reframes the entire economic issue. If you ask me about hard numbers and solutions, it is very different than asking what is the correct moral answer alone.

Have a good weekend, and hope you and yours are doing well.

oprah bought the last election

Obama has had 160 of these meetings. What's the big deal?

George Soros bought the last election. Hollywood is trying to buy this one. Obama is schmoozing with his millionaire and billionaire friends in fundraisers instead of giving a dam about the country! Does he know that people are suffering with these fires. He sure as hell ignored completely the destruction by the tornadoes when he flew over them on the way toe the Michigan fundraisers. He is an elitist uncaring bastard and must be defeated if this country is not going to end in economic ruin!

Watermoon,

Obama has shown a sad lack of compassion in the face of a great many stories. The tornadoes you mentioned are only one of many. There was also the Pearl beheading, the Fort Hood massacre, etc. When he does stop to notice something bad that happens, he tries to turn it into a political event, or he messes up the facts so badly that he makes himself look like a fool (for example, the Kansas tornado that killed 13. He told reporters that it killed over 10,000.)

Oprah is being shunned now.

We Report, You Decide.

chestypuller I see no facts in your report. So I decided your full of s#it. Saying the same old republican talking points won't get you anywhere.

Well Russ, you are poor reader.

Smitty boy, I can't track down that chart that showed US income 1787-1929 and then since. It's easy finding since, but it's very hard tracking down that old stuff.

So just take me at my word, trust me 100%. As a two-time GW Bush voter, I cannot tell a lie.

I think the Redhead gets email alerts when the minute these things get posted. The fact that she's always got her inbox up shows you what a lousy life she must live.

It wasn't the same group each time billybob. You really should watch Fox News as these Obamamedia liberal trash sites only give out the White House talking points. It was so funny to hear so many liberals say that they had never even heard of "Fast and Furious" before last week even though the story broke on Fox News 18 months ago! NBC finally had to report it after Holder was being cited for contempt! And you don't seem to know that Obama has attended 160 fundraisers since April - more than the past five presidents combined. Cost to attend was $1200 at a low to $40,000 at the George Clooney bash. A real man of the common folk this elitist fraud is!

republicans don't care about the poor. All they want is to defeat the President, at the cost of the country. Real American.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Smitty-

At the cost of the country? Really? Perhaps you might like to take a moment and explain exactly how republicans dont care about the poor, and exactly how this is at the cost of the country.....

Optimist -

Perhaps you might want to explain to me exactly how the wealthy felt as they were ponying up with George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker to "hobknob" with the "rich and famous".

I will be fascinated to hear your explanation of how President Obama doing all of his fund raising is perfectly ok with you, but for Romney to fund raise is somehow not equivalent, or wrong.

And by the way, Optimist - well done with the pity party talking points about the long term unemployed, the financially destitute, and the plight of the poor.

Tell me this, about the long term unemployed - when exactly did 99 weeks of unemployment insurance become not enough? Precisely when did it become my responsibility, via taxes, to make sure that the unemployed could be funded to take all the time they want to find exactly the job of their dreams, instead of doing what they have to do to make their way through this world? When have we finally given enough?

Perhaps you could tell me this about the "plight of the poor" - when you see a grossly overweight person with multiple children, driving a car with expensive rims, talking on thier smart phone about how unfair the expense of their cable package and internet is, and they use their food stamp card at the store, do you see the problem, or do you only feel bad for them?

I'm not talking about those who got in a fix because of personal irresponsibility. Many are poor because of factors beyond their control, such as Mutt taking over and plundering the company that used to employ them.

Nota- I think what President Obama is doing would indeed be called "fund raising". What Romney is doing at the Chateau in Utah would and should be called something else. Why else would Rove be there?

Thanks Diane -

You confirm my point that fund raising by President Obama is ok for you andyour ilk, but if a republican fund raises it is obviously a crime of some type.

When you are ready to drop the double standard, and actually utilise logic, please feel free to try again.

I'm here:) Thought I'd get some laughs before I hit the hay.

Same here. :) Glad you stopped by. ♥

you too. I love looking at your car;)

Did you read the article about Stockton, CA going bankrupt?

Break it up or get a room.

Gem, no I haven't reached that one yet. I spent most of my time on the same article we were on last night about Obama and immigration. They're still posting comments, but it's slowed down.

Would-I-Lie . . . I'll take the second option.

$50,000 for a weekend is a much better deal than $40,000 for a plate.

And this is one event while Obama has been to 160 since April - all at taxpayer expense and in lieu of his performing his job in Washington. What a leader!

I wonder if he was planning to use the profits of his gun sales to the cartels for buying ads. So a border guard is killed along with several hundred innocent Mexicans. It is his executive privilege to do such things!

My goodness. What a disjointed collection of nonsensical dribble. Sigh. Let's take it from the top.

1. Why should any non-white vote for Obama? That sounds rather racially motivated, but I'm SURE that's not what you were implying since liberals always say anyone who votes AGAINST Obama does so because of his skin color.

2. Attacking the degrees or lack thereof of conservatives is really rather pathetic. You contradict yourself by complaining about Hannity, Rush, and Beck, only to later slam 'degreed Repubs.' Make up your mind please, and get back to us.

3. Limbaugh did not call women taking birth control Sl*ts. He called one college girl that. Check the facts, then type. Then review your post. Then eliminate extraneous factual errors. THEN . . . click 'Post Comment.'

4. You're choosing not to mention the fact that an absurd number of Independents are now less likely to vote for Obama since his gay marriage stance. Check out my article called "Obama's Gay Marriage Stance: An Election Issue?" via my avatar. I break down all the stats for you. It's fully referenced, and there's enough liberal sources in there to keep you libs happy as well.

And anyone taking advice from a Cub fan is sure not to get anywhere, 2nd place forever, hahahahahah! Liberals are much better baseball players!! Mormons are really bad ball players. Degreed repubs are Tools of these slimy gods of yours. Speaking of gods remember Mitt acts like one very day.

2nd place? My goodness, you really are a moron. I'd give a whole lot to have your misinformation be true.

We're in sixth place.

Out of six teams.

It was wrong for Limbaugh to use a negative expression toward a woman but fine for Biill Maher to refer to Laura Ingram as an ignorant slut?

Watermoon,

Don't forget the Letterman 'joke' about Palin's 14 yr old getting raped by Alex Rodriguez. He apologized, but I don't remember liberals demanding it. Most of them just laughed and tried to defend him.

Double standard?

CubsFan - You are the reason my entire family where White Sox Fans - To your point

1) Liberals never said anyone who votes against Obama is prejudiced - take it from a White Woman and last I looked all of my voting ages Children and Grandchildren are White

2) Don't understand your second post except most of the people on Fox News are drop outs from higher education - which is a fact

3) Limbaugh called not a College Student but an Harvard Law student a slut and asked her to post her sexual exploits on line so he could watch - He also called the Nuns on a Bus Feminatzis - check it out yourself

4) And as far as Independents go most of the posters on line here who call themselves Independents are just too ashamed to call themselves Republicans The real Independents are the younger generation like College Grads and Students that have not yet made their minds up - like a few of my grandaughters - but I'm working on them

So North Side of Chicago Cubs Fan where all the Richies live - try again

Signed South Side of Chicago White Sox Fan - where the working class have always lived

Obama said none of Sandusky's victims looked like they could have been his son....so he didn't care.

Rev - Maybe it's because Sandusky was prejudiced and only seduced little white boys

You truly are one "sick puppy"

The majority of millionaires and billionaires are liberals - as we are seeing in these Obama fundraisers where the elite pay up to $40,000 to attend. And there have been 160 since April - more than the five previous presidents combined.

http://nikitas3.com/1083/why-are-so-many-rich-people-liberals/

Democratic Party is the party of the rich that pretend to care about the poor while keeping them in bondage - dependent on the federal government for their survival. GOP present opportunity to advance oneself - and Herman Cain is a great example. Blacks need to look to such an example instead of allowing Obama and his party to keep them in involuntary servitude.

MmHmm. And Liberals are compassionate, tolerant, understanding, loving, and eager to compromise. And let me guess, Tony . . . you're a prime example, right?

Tony -

Just two things for you - first, I will respond at your level....

I know you are, but what am I?

Typically I would respond differently, but you post is so full of it that I just cant help myself.

Second - good news for you Tony - really, it is - you win!

You are the recipient of my prestigious "Oh god, you get to vote" award for the day.

Your brilliant use of the kill grandma talking point, combined with your even more brilliant reference to christianity while condemning people, counter to all christian values, has earned you this valuable prize!

Congratulations sir! You have proven yourself to be the least fact driven person posting here so far today that I have seen, as well as the most partisan and least likely to respond to actual reason.

I am truly impressed - but perhaps that makes me "racist", a "bigot", a "Fascist", self centered, soulless, or uncaring....

Yes, Hypocrite is the first word in the GOP dictionary, and the definition of it reads: "Alternative name for liberals who claim to be tolerant only to take every opportunity to spew hate at conservatives."

There are several pictures included with this entry. One is of President Obama, and one is of Tony up the page here.

Romney did show his taxes.

Anyone know why Obama won't show his college transcript?

Latest Rasmussen Poll: Romney 48% - Obama 43%, and he hasn't even chosen his vice-president yet. Add that the incumbent only gets 10% of the undecided in presidential elections and this becomes Romney 56% - Obama 44%. And Obama is stuck with Biden as vice-president.

You can see by the posts that the libs are in complete panic! And next week will be Obama's worst yet. Obamacare ruled unconstitutional, Holder gets contempt citation, and the economy numbers continue to spiral downwards!

Well at least you have enough intelligence to admit that hypocrite is in the GOP dictionary.

Unfortunate for you the opportunity to be intelligent ended after your first sentence.

If you want to redeem yourself please tell us what Romney's plan is......
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Now's the time where you run and hide like a right wing coward. ........you have no idea because Romney has no idea.

Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Feel stupid? You should.

Watermoon just quoted the Rasmussen poll that's been getting shared a lot in the last couple days. Before any of you liberals resort to the typical tactic of slamming Rasmussen's accuracy, check this chart out from a PhD at Fordham University:

Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
—Initial Report, November 5, 2008—
Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Fordham University
For inquiries: cpanagopoulo@fordham.edu or (917) 405-9069
For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.
Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion
Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from
these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain
support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were
perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

A patriotic American would not be selling guns to Mexican cartels in order to frame local gun shops at the border so that he can then make an assault on the 2d Amendment. And he would not then exert executive privilege in order to keep the truth from coming out.

You do know that this kind of operation started in 2006........

No you don't, you aren't smart.

Nevermind.

The earlier operation was done with the Mexican Gov. Not behind their back with 200 dead. You do know that right?

So your half truth is half lie.

And you are privy to covert operations?

hahahahahahahahahahah

Tell me about the sales to Iran under Reagan please.

Hahjajajajajajajajjaja

And which branch of the military did Obama serve in? Does this mean he also is a Chicken-hawk - or would it be a Raven-hawk? He was of age during wartime as well.

And Romney didn't dodge the draft. There was a system in place where one received a random number depending on his birth date the year you were first eligible. My number for May 2 was 317 my year and his was 220 or so his year - both were beyond the numbers needed that year for the draft - which ended about 170. It was the system of the time and we both were lucky enough to not be chosen. Know what you are talking about and quit spreading lies!

Does the U S Military take Indonesian citizens?

MOON: Sorry buddy, that just ain't gonna fly. Obama was never of age during the war. Willard on the other hand has publicly stated that "I longed to serve with my fellow Americans in Viet Nam" and then decided to take 4 deferments instead. Of course being Romney, at another time he said that he had no desire to be in the military which is par for the course with Willard. He has at least 3 positions on any issue.

He was able to get deferements because he was doing "Missionary work" in Paris of all places. His father didn't serve in WWII, he weasled out of the draft and only became 1A when he had picked a ridiculously high draft number, nor have a single one of his 5 boys given a thought to service. A great example to set for the nation along with keeping his millions in offshore accounts.

And yes, I know what I'm talking about.

The real scandal is involved with the Obama bundlers. George Soros is total scum who has made his hatred to the US and capitalism clear. George Kaiser - billionaire bundler who was heavily invested in Solyndra to which Obama sent 500 million. Then when it went belly up Kaiser was moved to the head of the list for getting money back even though the law said taxpayers should be paid back first. Pat Stryker - billionaire blunder who profited by the 300 million given to the Abound Solar Panel corporation in Colorado that Obama sent there. Jon Corzine - billionaire bundler who is indicted for fraud in the corporation he drove into bankruptcy and where 2 billion dollars is still missing.

Obama is a proven crook playing crony capitalism and we know this. Your unwarranted concern about Romney pales in the light of this factual knowledge. We have seen how Obama will govern if elected. And he is driving the country into certain ruin - which does indeed scare the hell out of any sane person - or at least one who is not personally pro fitting from his buying of their votes.So which is it - are you a federal employee or on welfare?

Moon "BEAM" your light is about gone. You are so funny I can't quit laughing at your blogs. hahahahaha, what a sharp wit but a stupid one those for those who know better.

Run Republican numbers for us.

And do not forget that Obama has net worth of over 10 million and he has never had a real job in his life. One has to wonder just how a community organizer/state senator/US Senator and now president has managed to amass such a fortune. A true man of the people - one of us!

He ran the top 7 PTNY - not his fault all 7 were Democrats.

President of Harvard Law Review has it's perks doesn't it? Plus a best seller book did his family good.

Why isn't the left screaming and yelling about this list?

PTNY,

'Run the Republican numbers' for you? Apparently you don't understand. These aren't 'Democrat' or 'Republican' numbers. They're just numbers. I know that's a weird concept to a liberal, since you're used to facts having a skew on them, but these are just numbers. The top seven wealthiest Senators are all Democrats. As a matter of fact, 21 out of the top 35 wealthiest are Democrats.

Because it's BS?

It's fact, dude. Don't like it? Check it out yourself. Google 'Net worth of US Senators.' It's really not that difficult.

It really doesn't interest me that much. I care about the candidate himself more.

CUB: So with all these wealth Democrats how come you accuse them constantly of being socialists if not Marxist?? I mean, that is the #1 talking point of the Right, is it not?

You fail to discern the difference however. There have been many wealthy Democrats. Look at JFK and FDR. Who was more patrician than FDR? Which is why the Right called him a traitor to his class. The difference being that these people have the ability to empathize with the average American. You don't honestly think that the tight ass like Willardo actually has the slightest notion of what the average working person deals with? This guy is so far removed from reality it's downright pathetic.

cubs

So what have they done for or to you with their vote's?

CubsFan - Throw in Darryl Issa $450 Million sort of like he beats all of your arguments

Of course your one-sided BS is just that