alkjdf - You're absolutely right, it's the job of the voters to verify what the candidates say - wish it wasn't...but, that's another story. :)

Anyway, President Obama did not lie about Romney's stance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/fact-check-the-auto-industry-bailout/

What other areas did he lie about Romney's record? You claim several.

Point conceded on bayonets, but now you're splitting hairs.

Lastly, we have the strongest, larges, most advanced navy in the world. President Obama is absolutely correct in his assertion that military spending can be trimmed due to these advances in technology. Do you honestly believe that President Obama intends to cut military spending so as to put America in harm's way?

@Curious:

Yes, he did, in fact, lie about Romney's stance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2&amp&;
“A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. ”

@McGruber - Romney was advocating that the auto industries sought credit on the private market, and considering the state of the markets at that time it simply would not have worked, there was no money to be lent out on the private markets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

Pants on fire lie on this one for Romney

Correct. Romney would have allowed the auto industry to go under. They had to seek government money because there was no money being lent at that time (the credit crunch, maybe you all remember that banks were in big trouble). Romney was fine with the fact that they could not get financing and would face bankruptcy.

alkjdf - Romney's statement was fact checked by news sources. His only referrence to government help was to guarantee some of the secondary help AFTER the auto companies would go through regular bankruptcy. Except that wouldn;t have been possible because the credit markets were frozen. Romney's plan would have ended the US auto industry.

Speaking of facts, the President did NOT say we DON'T use horses and/or bayonets, he said we use fewer of them.

Re the bayonets, and I agree that it is splitting hairs, bayonets ARE still used in the military, but as another knife and mostly in training. There has not been a bayonet charge since the Korean War.

He didn't say they dont use horses and bayonets, he said they use *fewer* horses and bayonets. Loot at the exact quote.

Once again, it is the American people who lose. We can not have dishonesty and discord in the White House. We witnessed once again that even the fact checkers are slanted on their reports making their choice look like the winner. Go to various sites on the internet other than face book. Find out what the policies are and how your chosen candidate stands on each one of them. Educating yourself on the policies would be a wise and interesting thing to do. Making disrespectful comments on these polls is not going to help you or your opponent to get the facts straight. It certainly is not going to change someone's mind about your party if they are being attacked by a person who represents that party. Please Vote Responsibly.

Aagh ... Now you've got me wondering how much we're spending on bayonets.

Lot fewer bayonets and horses. Type of ship and deploymet matters. Aircraft carriors carry a lot more punch than and have much longer range and operating endurance than pre nuclear carriers. Frigates are much more potent escort vessels that decades ago. A task force needs the correct combination of carriors and escort vessels including attack submarines to be effective at projecting military power and surviving opposing forces. We don't use battle ships anymore. Gross ship numbers do not tell a complete story.

Re: bayonets

Actually the US military has more M9 bayonets in its inventory today than there were people in the military in 1916. 409,000 M9s vs. 190,000 US military personnel.

And, they are NOT just used in training. They are issued to every US soldier and marine.

"The Marines and the Army both still issue rifle-mounted knives to serve as hand weapons, utility knives, saws, and all-around handy items.

Bayonet training is an integral part of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, which every recruit must pass."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1023/Presidential-debate-101-Does-US-military-still-use-horses-and-bayonets

And then there's this:
Bayonet & knife combat training is on the rise; we could be using more bayonets now than in 1916
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/in-defense-of-bayonets-horses-5-problems-with-the-presidents-zinger-last-night/

And no carrier goes about the oceans alone. They are in a strike group of at least a dozen support ships and one or two subs. Which, by the way, are referred to as 'boats' not 'ships' so the correct term for Obama's 'ships that go underwater' is "sunk."

Finally, despite the technological advances today's fleet have over the WWII fleet, one capability we have yet to provide them is the abilty to be in two places at once.

The zinger shows far more about just how little Obama and the progressive liberal speech writers know about the reality of our military.

David, training with a bayonet doesn't make it essential. And moving beyond the President's reference to them, I'm STILL wondering, how much are we paying for these bayonets?

Michele: we pay far less for the M9s than we do for just one of the vacations Michelle Obama has taken on our dime.

And Bush never took a vacation at Crawford. Neither did Laura.

I recall one wise commentator mentioning we should "follow the money" and I'll assume they meant that corrupts our elections. So imagine my surprised to hear that Pres. Obama has mastered "the gaming of our broken system" faster than any politican in our countries history by breaking the $1 billion dollar mark in political contributions!! Hmmmm..? http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/21/obama-tops-1-billion-in-career-political-contributions/

there's no reply button under GDR's comment, but just to note the "Daily Caller" is a right-wing Rag connected to Dick Cheney, and I doubt Obama would have had so many contributors were it not for the brazen attempts by the right to buy the election and suppress voter turnout. I predict the backlash of the American electorate at large against the Republican excesses (any of you political science types heard of a Thermadorian reaction?) will be substantial. The weight of the pendulum of public opinion can be pulled to one side only so long, and those trying to force it to an unnatural position are pulled to their political demise by doing so.

Thanks for the note Ken,
I can only hope and pray that the pendulum of public opinion finally sways back to the side of fiscal reponsibility by next Tuesday. It's been in an unnatural position for way too long. I know if anyone of us, our children, or children's children managed money by the examples of our federal govn't we'd all be broke! Time for a change

I disagree that our military capability should be measured by money spent, but I definitely agree that Obama, and many people in America, don't understand how bankruptcy works. If GM were to have gone into bankruptcy, it would have much greater flexibility in several areas, including, most notably, with labor regulations. If GM were to have gone under bankruptcy, it would've resulted in many layoffs of unions workers, most of which would've been replaced by non-union workers. Obama's bailout was not in defense of jobs, but rather of union jobs. Those unions, by the way, are a major funder for his campaign. In a way, Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler for his self interest to uphold our outdated labor laws. GM, and many of its very valuable brands, would've survived. GM still had to kill of many brands like Pontiac and Saturn (which never made a profit anyways). Bankruptcy actually helps businesses pull up their boot straps and become economically productive. If your interest is in protecting union over non-union jobs, then yes, you probably would want to support the auto bailout. Just please be mindful of the highly politicized benefits of Obama's bailout, and then please be aware that Romney's position appeals to no donors or bundlers. Now, I should tell you, I am an Obama supporter, although political centrist, and I am one year too young to vote. Let me finish be reminding everyone that Obama plays the same political game as everyone else and is just as dirty at it.

Laurie Beth, how do you know Romney told the truth?

Do you have any examples of the "lies" President Obama told tonight? As far as other matters of the debate were concerned, Romney's foreign policy can essentially be boiled down to "My policy is whatever the President's is, but I would have done it sooner and better. I think."

Laurie, let me suggest politifact.com and factcheck.org please don't believe the pundits, or your limited view of the issues. You might "believe" Romney is telling the truth, but please do yourself and the country a service and find out the TRUTH before voting.

One big lie Romney told

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

my favorite Mark Twain saying... you have lies... damn lies and then statistics...

the most timely comment I heard was Romney saying " Attacking me is not an agenda"..in other words where is your plan

Actually, alkjdf, I check my military facts through my husband, a former infantry and military intelligence officer. And I don't recall actually arguing here or offering facts, just questioning your stances. I'm still not sure about your bayonet thing; I'll ask him tomorrow. And I promise to answer honestly.

Take a look at their analysis and conclusion. They rate it a "pants on fire" lie because it is an "apples to oranges" comparison. A WWI boat doesn't come close to a modern nuclear sub or aircraft carrier in operational capability (or cost, even in real dollars).

It was a stupid statement from Romney, and showed his lack of depth and no understanding of modern military.

Obama showed his experience (and insider position) tonight. The fact is that Romney has no foreign policy experience (you don't get to do that as governor of Massachusetts). That's just a fact. Any incumbent (black, white, Republican, or Democrat) would out swing Romney on foreign policy, and Obama, as expected, did just that.

...and obama had HOW much experience with forigen policy when he became president? Oh, thats right, he was a community leader/organizer....

As an organizer Obama's talent is picking and surrounding himself with the best talent. He does this extremely well, and relies on expertise of military advisors, economic advisors, etc. Unlike Bush, he doesn't dismiss science for political gain. He uses facts, evidence, and best practices to make thoughtful and effective decisions.

As an governor, Mitt Romney's talent is picking and surrounding himself with the best talent. He does this extremely well, and relies on expertise of various advisors that are experts in their fields. Mr. Romney also has practical business experience in running companies and organizations, turning losing companies and organizations into ones that are able to make a profit. This is an area where President Obama has absolutely no experience.

Too funny Romney surrounded himself with wonderful women he found in the binders that he allowed to go home by 5 pm so they could cook dinner. How nice.

Edward -
Surrounds himself with the best and most competant - you mean Biden? Thanks for the laugh!

Couldn't agree more with you! Romney was very poised and presidential. Obama wanted a fight and he didn't get one.

wow- you really believe that garbage written above?

Well, one thing's for sure yomammy. Your comments are garbage. You offer no facts, just bluster.

The bailout of GM has NOT been completely paid back.

The actual loan portion of the bailout has been paid in full ahead of schedule. What is still held in balance is the stock holdings portion by the federal government whose value is not yet recognizable.

Edward, for you to tell anyone else they have no facts is hilarious when all you did was offer more of the same. In order to prove your point maybe you could have helped back up Trent's position which would be tough to do because they are mostly false or misleading. The bailout has not been paid back in full. The last time I heard we (taxpayers) would lose about 20 billion if the stock was sold. The stock sale was part of the bailout so unless we can recoup all of our money then we haven't been repaid.

"value is unrecognizable" in laymans terms...we just lost a few more billion....

You mean in YOUR terms. The other part of the equation is what the cost to the Federal govt would have been if the industry went under. These costs to name a few include lost tax revenues (Fed, State & Local), unemployment benefit costs and additional safety net costs (i.e. TANF). There are estimates that these costs would have exceeded the entire cost of the bailout even if nothing had been repaid.

Trent-
Maybe the President didn't lie - but he also did not tell the truth - In fact the auto companies were bankrupt and you (if you are and every other tax payer) bailed them out - if they have paid back the bailout - why does the US Government (US) still own 52% of GM? Fact is, if the government ever actually sold that stock the auto companies would be bankrupt because the stock is worth so much less than it was when the US purchased it. But, if you consider that stronger than ever, your financing must be as good as the federal governments. Romney wanted to let the auto companies go through a normal bankruptcy and keep it in the private sector (where it should be).
Romney doesn't need a buzzer behind him, he has a rude incompetent behind him interrupting all the time.

Mr. obama....

The correct title is President Obama, as he is the sitting president of the US.

Thank you. Respect for the Office of President has been severely lacking the pase 3+ years...

obama is president?
..oh, there he is...on the golf course and then a talk show.....

Frederick-
The sitting President should have a pretty good idea of what the CiC does this late in the game, even one with no experience coming in.

"yomammy" - really? a golf course jab? The President of the US (any and all of them) has the most difficult job in America, probably the world. They are allowed a few days to themselves and their families (and really its hours and even then they're not alone). And before you jab at that, remember Pres. Bush (W) took more vacation than ANY president at least since Hoover (and maybe ever). If you do the math, Bush spent just under 1/3 of his presidency on vacation. So just stop it with the ridiculous "obama is president?" crap.

These are the type of irrelevant comments yomammy makes. Best to ignore them.

"Respect for the Office of President has been severely lacking the pase 3+ years..."

Actually, it's more like 5+ years. Obama had no respect for the office of the President when he was running against President Bush. Did you notice he never said "President Bush" and always (and still does) call him George Bush?

I meant to say "when he was running against John McCain"

You know, the sad thing is, I think many politicians think being in public office is about being a pop star. Think about it, before there was any or much TV, most presidents were "too ugly" to get elected today. One even used a wheelchair, which would NEVER fly today.

I know you want to blame the candidate here, which I get, its easy to do, but we've got to realize that the "pop star" factor is like fashion trends, its much of our own making, defining what it means to be "cool enough." Think about the last election, so many people liked Palin because she was "just like them" - well, many people want to see the president (not just this one) fulfill that role. Being on their fave talk show can do that for some people. Its the same reason Romney has been so criticized for being "out of touch" with people. And being on more talk shows than any past president isn't that big of a surprise. Media changes, there are many more talk shows to be on now... just like there are many more campaign stops because of easy flight travel.

All that said, WE THE PEOPLE, of which politicians are a part, have made elections into American Idol-ish events and there is no end in sight.

Maybe if we were all forced to listen to the debates on the radio, as someone mentioned they did themselves, and not on TV we'd all be more focused on the policy than the pop factor.

What I want to know is HOW is Romney going to get the economy up and running again? You say 'Romney has clearly shown he has the competency and core qualities to get the USA back on the road to prosperity'. HOW? What are those qualities? Just because he says he can does not mean he does. Throughout these debates he has said he will get it done without giving any examples as to how he will get it done. It is absolutley ridiculous. I'm sick of hearing about his '5 point plan' without hearing what the heck that is.

Emily, you're right, but it's not just this country. Look at the high-ranking politicians in the european countries, and the papperazzi that follow them around. I think part of the problem is that people don't want to be bothered with thinking seriously about US and world affairs, and how events and responsibilities would truly affect them. Either they're too stupid, or too lazy to care (probably a lot more of the 2nd).

You see no improvement?

When Bush left office the country was Losing 700,000+ jobs a month we have been gaining jobs steadily under Obama.

Under Obama the stock market has gone up 60% (let's remember that this was one of they key's that Conservatives would tell us about the economy when Obama was taking office and they told us that the stock market would crash under Obama's policies.

The Republicans entered from Day 1 and Mitch told the world that the Number 1 Priority of Republicans was to make Obama a one term President - even while the economy was in free fall and they have done everything possible to do so regardless of who they have had to throw under the proverbial bus.

We no longer have body bags coming home from Iraq - and Afghanistan is a disaster that Bush started to which their is no good end and Obama is dealing with it the best he can.

I don't know what you would consider "improvement" but I do know this - we have no idea at all where Mitt stands on almost any issue so if elected it will be like whacking a Pinata and we'll get to see what falls out - Good Times :)

rob_h78-
At the rate of "improvement" the unemployment rate won't be under 7% in the next 20 years. And a trillion dollars was spent? Works out the be about $120,000 per year per job - I'd like to make that much!
The market would have been up as part of the natural cycle of the market without spending the $trillion dollars (which nobody really knows where it went)
Your President had full majority for 2 years before Mitch made that statement - what did he get done? Oh yeah, raised every-ones health insurance $2500+ a year more. Thanks.
Obozo did a good job following Bush's plan to get us out of Iraq (even though he did have amnesia last night about wanting to keep troops there). Obozo got us into Afghanistan because "that was the right direction" - Either way several terrorists got us into both wars - it wasn't any president.
Hope you are enjoying your improvement - I'm not.

@ Ken Lehman
According to Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally
“Ford would have closed because it wouldn’t have been able to get parts, because the parts industry in this country was in arguably worse shape than the assemblers"

Mulally said he agreed with the assessment of “the economic advisers of the Bush administration and the Obama administration that if GM and Chrysler had gone into free fall, they could have taken the United States from a recession into a depression.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shut-without-auto-bailouts-rattner-says

I appreciate that acknowledgement. Whether it is coming from the left or the right, the opinions have a much better chance of being debated rationally through civil discourse.

"take over a free market health care system"

This is a lie. The ACA is free market reform, not government take over. We will still buy our insurance from private sector insurance companies. Stop calling it something it is not.

Who is "taking over" the health care system?

Edward, you do realize that there will be thousands and thousands of govt workers hired for ObamaCare, right? It's also govt mandates across the board for everything so even though there may be free enterprises the amount of competition will dwindle.

we all know how wonderful the .gov is at running programs...
socil security...medicare, medicaid, VA, 100's of social programs, etc etc etc
ALL bloated, BROKE programs.

Mandated entry(sharing!!?) into a Government (IRS + others) regulated reporting system (HIX) to find a govn't mandated health plan through a Govn't approved Accountable Care Organization (ACO), or maybe a willing insurance company doesn't have the look (or smell) of free market reform to me...

"you do realize that there will be thousands and thousands of govt workers hired for ObamaCare, right? It's also govt mandates across the board for everything"

This is pure wild-ass speculation on your part. There are no "mandates across the board for everything".

Cite your sources for this BS.

Edward, What don't you understand about ObamaCare (PPACA) and free market reform? Didn't you follow the Supreme Court decisions and that everyone needs (mandated) to register (or pay a fine) with a Health Insurance Exchange. In most circles they are now referred to as HIX. Didn't you know our own Gov. Dayton has spent over $40 million in unapproved funds to design a federally approved HIX in Minnesota already??? And yes, I'm well aware the govn't will have to hire (who do you think pays those folks??) many exchange assistants and many new IRS agents (up to 16,000!!) to track if you have a plan, an employer plan and whether you qualify for tax credit or penalty. Still wild ass speculation? If you didn't know about the mandated exchanges, or our State's misguided direction already it might a little late for me to try educate you on mandated ACO's, community ratings, and mandated loss ratios. But good luck on your free market reform...
source: www.gov.org / PPACA, or CATO Institute

www.gov.org / PPACA

This link doesn't work.

CATO is an extreme right "think tank". Not a valid nonpartisan source.

Try again.

Carole Rydberg, how true what you just said. You hit it right on, I feel the same as you. If President Obama said White is White, the Republicans would say No, its Black. Thats what he had to deal with these 4 years.

What a load of garbage. This is the only way you can justify his poor performance. I guess taking responsibility isn't part of the plan for ANY democrats in life or politics.

personal responsibility? A dem? no way!!! There is a .gov program for that!!!!
If not we will create one!

Governor Romney's idea of reaching across the aisle as Governor? He issued 800 vetoes while in office. Most of which were over turned.
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154583216/romney-as-governor-confrontation-one-big-deal

Beth:

Who is paying you to post this stuff? You are from Florida, but you post on several Patch sites outside of Florida. Most notably, you posted pretty much the same comment on the Exeter, NH, Alpharetta, GA, Plymouth, MN, Chesterfield, MO, Vienna, VA, Waukesha, WI, and several other Patch sites around the US.

http://dunedin.patch.com/users/beth-norquist

How much are they paying, and how does one get such a job?

wow nice catch cowdung..ps how did you get that name?

@ cow & guy
What does it matter where the person who is posting something is from or where it is posted? If the information is correct, it is correct. Focusing on things that have nothing to do with the fact of the matter just shows how little you have to contrast the position stated.

As far as how CowDung got his or her name, read tha posts and make the connection. this is another person who is afraid of connecting their actual name to their opinions. I wonder why that is?

Venture capitalists admittedly are in business for themselves and their investors. This is the majority of Governor Romney's business experience. Who will be the investors in his Government takeover? He did save the Olympics. He did so with the help of $1.4 billion in direct and indirect federal funding.

A 2-3 Trillion dollar increase in Defense Spending is?

@ D. Knutson you forgot one B
that would be the B-S coming from Romneys mouth. Same place the other inane, inept comments came from.

@ Renee
Glad to read you are still following the liberal playbook and attacking the opposition. The 3 B's I mentioned came form the liberals that got nothing else they can say, The current administration can't talk about accomplishments, they have none!!

@ D. Knutson (one of the many on the right who is afraid to reveal his or her true identity when revealing their opinions)
Ask auto workers and employees of the residual auto industries if our President has accomplished nothing. Ask 23-25 year olds and those with pre-existing conditions if our President has accomplished nothing. Ask seniors who pay less for prescriptions and nothing for many preventative screening procedures if our President has accomplished nothing. Ask Veterans of Iraq If our President has accomplished nothing. Ask participants of the stock market whose value has doubled if our President has accomplished nothing. Ask the world who in 2009 didn't know if our economy was going to survive the crisis caused by the decisions made by the previous administration if our President has accomplished nothing. need i go on?

hmmm...wish my stocks have doubled....guess i managed to not pick any of the winners... Welfare is on the stock exchange?
What did he do for the veterans?
Ask the Ford workers what he did for the...oh...nevrmind...they ran their company correctly.

@ D. Knutson "The current administration can't talk about accomplishments, they have none!!"?????? Seriously? Osama Bin Ladan, Mubarek, Kaddafi - GONE. While you may hate "Obamacare" those with pre-existing conditions do not, the elderly that experienced "the donut hole" do not, those who had no coverage for preventive care do not. Actually there is a long list of things that are better than they were 4 years ago. But you're not interested in hearing anything positive about Obama so I'll quit. And "following the liberal playbook and attacking the opposition"? That too is funny..........what are you doing?

@yomammy
What has he done for Veterans? I can speak directly to this. As a veteran with a 40% disability status, via the V.A. he provided for me the opportunity to go back to college and complete my degrees.

@John Feia
Afraid of what? My first initial and last name is there, more than most do....
23 million unemployed or under employed, the economy in shambles, gasoline prices double of when he took office, and we haven't even felt the full effect of the Robin Hood plan, take from the rich and give to the lazy.

@ Renee
Our military found and killed Bin Laden, not the President. In fact Obama wanted him alive if at all possible, so he could be put on trial. Great job of running out the leaders of the Middle East and then watching all the turmoil from a distance, the Middle East is in shambles because of Obamas appeasement and apology approaches....

@D Knut
You said that our President (of whom you refuse to regard him as) has accomplished nothing. I put out just a few of his accomplishments. I don't hear any defense of your own comment. Also, you think that you are qualified to interpret the President's intentions in his pursuit and elimination of Osama Bin Laden? I guess you are the Midwest's expert on the political landscape of the middle east. Get over yourself .

@ john flea
First of all what you claim are accomplishments are things that you as a ultra liberal support, so you feel these are good things, no everyone agrees with you.
Apparently whatever you spew is gospel, and if you don't agree with what others say, its crap. I don't have anything to get over, I'm not full of myself like you are.... Liberal playbook, attack everyone that doesn't act like a lemming and fall in line behind what you say.
Remember who said if I can't accomplish my goals in four years I shouldn't be re-elected? Good news is he won't !!

D Knutson said: "Our military found and killed Bin Laden, not the President. In fact Obama wanted him alive if at all possible, so he could be put on trial."

Myself, I have serious doubts about this, although it is true that that is the story we are given. If they hadn't wanted a firefight, they wouldn't have landed in helicopters.

Maybe there's a new super secret helicopter out there that doesn't displace air, but I've seen most military helicopters, thanks to living under the flight path and also living some years in the military. You hear them coming.

Why do I think they lied? So the rest of us wouldn't feel the death on our souls, I guess. Isn't that what our protectors do all the time?

I'm just guessing here. It's the one thing that really didn't add up to me.

@ D. Knutson
Knock knock puddin head, just who is the head of the military? Try to follow along here, it is the Commander In Chief, aka The PRESIDENT. And if you're going to pin all the bad on the President, you will just have to accept that there is some good.

@ D Knut
Please explain how the things that I listed as accomplishments by our president are not. Just labeling them as "ultra liberal" talking points doesn't make your case. Even if you say so.

@johnny flea & the hanger-ons

Look around the country, and what you see is the majority of the states do not have the whack job liberal views. California & New York because because of the biased media and population size do whatever they can to influence the rest of the country with there twisted viewpoints.

Funny thing is Minnesota is laughed at for the goofballs they elect; Wellstone, Ventura, Stuart Smally, Ellison, and Dayton..... Well you get the point,

There's good news and bad news, the good news is Minnesota will have zero impact on the Presidential Election. The Bad News is, you Obama and liberal whack jobs will have to sit by helplessly and watch the rest of the country elect Gov Romney.

Go Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado..... And more, bring Romney - Ryan to the White House....

Oh, D., I have missed you, and your warped sense of fair play.

Here are some (about one tenth) of Obama's promises that he followed through on - note that many are not "liberal" items and that this is just a small glimpse:

-Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
-No permanent bases in Iraq
-Make military deployments predictable for troops and families
-End the "Stop-loss" program of forcing troops to stay in service beyond their expected commitments
-End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war
-End the use of torture
-Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
-Increase efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy
-Create new financial regulations
-Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes
-Create an international tax haven watch list
-Establish a credit card bill of rights
-Expand loan programs for small businesses
-Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
-Require children to have health insurance coverage
-Require health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care
-In non-competitive markets, force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care
-Expand Veterans Centers in rural areas
-Fully fund the Veterans Administration
-Assure that the Veterans Administration budget is prepared as 'must-pass' legislation

to be cont

-Expand housing vouchers program for homeless veterans
-Fully fund the Violence Against Women Act
-Expand federal bioforensics program for tracking biological weapons
-Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters
-Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
-Reform No Child Left Behind
-Reduce subsidies to private student lenders and protect student borrowers
-Expand Pell grants for low-income students
-Cap interest rates on payday loans and improve disclosure
-Strengthen the levees in New Orleans
-Reform the patent system
-Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
-Provide tax credits for automakers to build fuel-efficient cars
-Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
-Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
-Killed bin Laden

Go ahead, pick out your favorites, and argue them with all your might. It doesn't change anything, only shows you in a better light.

@Susan
First so all, lets look at all of the "Accomplishments" you list in the Middle East, and ask ourselves; How's that working out so far? The peace and quiet is almost deafening.

Secondly, the "Accomplishments" you listed are mostly burdens on the taxpayer as they are Government promoted programs. The mandates on business also impact the taxpayers and all consumers, as these regulations cost businesses, and they can no longer absorb these costs, so they are passed on to the consumers. These "Accomplishments" are major factors why our country has issues with a stagnant economy, that has put us in danger of falling off the fiscal cliff.

@Renee
Something's never change, name calling and verbal attacks, that's the Liberal way. You call Romney a B-S'er, but somehow overlook the current administrations lies and cover-ups. I recall a promise of transparency, and Pelosi once said "its time to drain the swamp".

Now we have:
Libya (and other embassies under or not protected)
Abound Solar
Israel and the Middle East issues
Fast and Furious
Solyndra

Lets not forget the Obama sequestration lie During the debate, he said it wouldn't happen. The fact is he signed the bill that DID include military sequestration, and that's no BS.

D., you made some pretty broad, generalizing statements.

It's good to know that you think taking care of our veterans and ending a war as "burden" on the taxpayers....I'll take on that burden, thank you.

You are correct. The Governor played a game last night. He embraced many of the President's foreign policies, contrary to what he has been saying up to this point to appear to be electable. What does that say about his ambitions? Can anyone reliably say how he would govern on all his conflicting issues in the unlikelihood of him being elected?

Correcting someone's misinformation (you would say lies but I think that is a bit overused here) Is not angry. I just listened to the debate again on the radio. Without the visuals it's even more obvious that Obama actually knows what he's talking about. Not just parroting what he's told to talk about and HOW to talk about it(I think in the prep for debates Romney has an acting coach)

Hi!
You are right about it being a game and Romney played it well, but what disturbs me is that he keeps changing to get the votes. He puts Ryan in to get the tea party vote, then last night he comes out with calculated reponses to appeal to the undecided women and doves to try to pull votes out of them. It's the wishywashyness that bothers me and the way he interrupts the moderators and tries to push for answers - that scares me. I also see nothing wrong with answering what he would do in a hypothetical situation. You need to do that before such as situation comes up, so you can weigh the action that follows. We need to know how the candidate will react. to judge whether we want him as president. There never were real solid specifics with this guy, only sound bites or whatever. Barak Obama should not have attacked, but I live in the 6th district and Michelle Bachman is 100% negative and shows no substance. She's an embarrassment. I look forward to a Centrist type party to emerge. Am so tired of right or left extremism. They don't work well together - hence the mess of nothing getting done. With MONEY as the bottom line, you will never see campaign reform. Campaign reform is desperately needed. A middle class person can never be elected president. It's also too bad Romney's sons did not have to go to war. Poor and middle class people join to get the GI Bill to get their college paid for. There's something wrong with that. Take care!

He does kind of look like Ward...

And what was the approval process for the debate questions?

Sounds like an opposite sound byte from the first debate. I guess its good when it works for you and your purpose...

Jesse, I feel the same. If Romney (who actually appears to be somewhat centrist, personally -- after all, he invented individual mandate with Romneycare in Massachusetts) is elected he'll be beholden to the extreme right that helped to get him elected. That's a problem.

Obama is also a centrist, as he's shown by his actions, and he has no obligation to extremists from either side.

Jesse,
Are you referring to the Democratic members of Congress? You know Harry reid and the Democratically controlled Senate who have vetoed Obama's budget plans for 3 consecutive years. You can check the facts on this, in factuality, not Democrat in the Senate voted for Obama's budget proposals. So are they hell-bent on bringing him down also?

Edward, At least you've discovered some mandates in Govn't controlled health "reform"..... BTW, your politifact source seems to be a bit left, with the few jounalist's from a fish wrapping company in FL heading up the "think tank"..??
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/MandatesintheStates2010

Gus, I was referring to the GOP Congress which stonewalls the President merely because they can. Inexcusable. The Democrat Senate which failed to support the President's budgets were, in my opinion, stupidly wrong. On the other hand, if the President had been a better leader, he would have made his party toe the line. LBJ would never have had those problems. I appreciate the fact that you use your name when commenting, by the way.

I was somewhat active in the 2008 Obama race, and I can say that it was NOT a Democratic campaign until the last minute. Obama won because his own people were so incredibly organized. Say what you will about the President, but I don't think anybody here will argue this.

Jesse,
Kudos to you for at least acknowledging that both parties of this Congress are a train wreck. One side is no less guilty than the other. I also strongly agree with your assertion about lack of leadership. I truly believe that as nice and likeable as BO is, he lacks basic leadership skills that are a necessity to be successfull. I'm not sure if it is arrogance or ignorance that keeps him from building the bridges necessary but I truly believe that this country cannot afford 4 more years with no captain in the wheelhouse.

(I only respond to assertions made by people with the courage to give their full name; I'm just picky that way) So, Gus, what we are left with (viz "Captains in the wheelhouse") is Willard Romney, who is probably better than he would have us believe, or more of President Obama, who has been a crashing disappointment to the majority of his supporters, although many of us continue to believe his heart is good. I will still vote for the President. Romney may in fact be a stronger leader, and would certainly be a better manager. However, four (or more!) years of letting the oil companies run wild, Wall Street continuing to misbehave, and all the other awful things that will happen as President Romney pays off his supporters ... that's just too much to endure. The Pelosie's of this world are totally annoying, but the Bachmanns are truly horrifying. I can't vote for anybody Shelly supports. Ever. (sorry for the apostrophe in "Pelosie's" ... I know it's wrong but nothing else looks right lol).

Hey, and maybe I'll make my financial decisions by watching the movie "Wall Street."

Don't be ridiculous. Have you read anything about Dinesh D'Souza? The guy that put that 'objective' piece of garbage together? Google his name, you will see what a peach he is.

2016? You mean made by Dinesh? The guy who was just booted from his job and was busted shacking up with his "girlfriend" while still being married to his wife?

This is the bastion of truth that we are going to trust?

Dinesh is a social conservative hypocrite who commits adultery....

If he can't stay true the vows he made before The Lord - how can we trust his honesty anywhere else?

@rob_h78: Dinesh has been separated from his wife for two years at her request and her unwillingness to reconcile. He finally filed for divorce and it has not been proven that they shared a hotel room. Due to the media's biased reporting, he willingly resigned from his post.

You have no factual reasons to throw him under the bus for the making of this movie.

No we don't. Look what happened when they got a hold of an inexperienced President last time...

John Feia, your post actually made me laugh. Good come-back, although I'm an Obama supporter. But ... IS there an experienced President, apart from the incumbent and those who went before? I don't think ANYTHING prepares you for this job. (That said, let's give a moment to respect George Washington's incredible KNOWING that this job would someday be so powerful, that we didn't want anybody in there for more than eight years.)

My comeback was in support of not repeating the mistakes made in 2000. If these morons get a hold of a (god forbid) president Romney, we would be in grave danger. Sorry if I was a little incoherent with my comment.

It's these threads; it's tough to keep track. It was still funny. : )

Do I know you bro? John Sununu thinks otherwise for some reason...

I was so proud that General Powell backed the President again. We've always been fans of Powell; my husband actually met him in the military. But we felt badly when he backed the war in Iraq. We felt betrayed.

Maybe really decent people just don't belong in D.C. It's a real-life Shakespearean play.

I wouldn't feel betrayed by Colin Powell's backing of the Iraq war. I believe that he was honoring his country in his position of Secretary of State in support of our President. This is something Republicans should take note of in these times. That being said, once he honored his position, he humbly and respectfully stepped down from that appointed position sending a message to the country about what his feelings actually were about the ill advised war in Iraq.

Well said, John Feia. I think the man was really conflicted.

I agree, merle feia. A little pat on the head for backing his own "people". Disgusting.

@johnny flea
Oh it will play out, you just won't like the outcome....

At least you're consistent in what you blather about; but you do sound a lot like a Chris Matthews and Eva Longoria clone. Most people, including a lot of those who voted for Obama in 2008, are not buying the Bush's fault crap anymore. If Obama was re-elected who would he blame for the mess he inherits this time? Biden? Maybe Congress, which was controlled by the Democrats his first two years in office?

4-years ago I would have been shocked if McCain had won Minnesota, I can't say I'd be totally shocked if Romney won Minnesota this time around.....

Well the ad isn't geared towards old people - it is a funny, well done ad...

As for endorsing - Mitt can't even walk away from Republicans who are telling women that their child conceived during a rape is a "Gift from God"....

So - let's compare:

A) an ad that has a double double entrada of a young woman losing her virginity to the right guy to the act of voting for the right guy...

B) With a politician who can't even walk away from and actually endorses a guy who tells women - even young girls who might be raped and actually who might lose their virginity - not to a guy of their choice - but rather to an animal that child they are now carrying - from the rapist - is a Gift from God and that they want the state to force that young girl to carry and then give birth that child regardless of what she wants...

Yup - and Obama is the disgusting one....

This ad may have been distasteful but take a look at your beloved Ronald Reagan's ad:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/ronald-reagans-first-time-vote-was-dirtier-lena-dunhams/58411/

Odd that the add doesn't endorse or try to appeal to gay and lesbian "first timers"... he is slipping.. he could have gotten a bunch more votes that way... or maybe the LBGT version is on its way.

I had about 35 comment links in my email this morning and most have to do with this ad. I read all the comments before watching the ad. My reactions is get a life. With all the crazy, hateful, misleading advertising this campaign season I found this one to be humorous, quirky and cute. As a society we use the "losing your virginity" imagery to mark the first time we do just about anything. I do not see the big deal. Maybe someone should do a story on campaign advertising and let us pick them all apart. It is all about imagery. How about the big Vote Yes billboards on the marriage amendment showing a black bride and groom? Who is that appealing to? The virginity ad is mild compared to some I have seen. For example the "Live and Let Live" ad by the pro-marriage amendment that has been discredited as false with the accusations it makes having nothing to do with marriage issues. But it continues to run despite not being truthful. And this virginity ad that reminds me of a SNL skit is considered offensive? Some folks need to lighten up.

Regardless, you on the right want to seem so offended by an ad like that yet you are not offended by the fact your candidates surrogate talks about how President Bush's former Chief of Staff endorsement of our current President is based on the fact that he is black like him? This is just the cusp of hypocrisy from the Governor's campaign. Get over your phoney outrage over this ad. If there is any outrage to be had, it should be directed towards your candidates ludicrous assertions that are ever changing.

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that President Reagan would never been nominated in your Republican party that exists today.

Look how much you have changed. Are you proud?

John - I am a Ron Paul libertarian - and had every reason to dislike Romney for the treatment done to the Ron Paulites at the Tampa Convention.

But thanks to the lack of morals coming your guy -- I have firmly decided to vote for Romney.

This ad was much more offensive than Reagan's quip -- his was an off the cuff poor taste joke. This ad was a premeditated, fully thought out offense to the moral standards of this country. To equate sexual action with voting is reprehensible.

If that is all it takes for decision for voter preference, I understand your preference for Ron Paul.

And Governor Romney...

Sorry John -- it doesnt go like that. This was the final straw in that decision.

Romney is fiscal conservative lite - but Obama doesnt care about the damage he is doing to this country. $16 Trillion in debt and almost half of that on his 3 1/2 years alone.

I was going to vote for Gary Johnson -- but this ad tipped the scales. Thanks to the low morals of the Democrat party. Nice Going!

You talk about fiscal conservatism yet you say that this ad tips your scale? How can you justify your argument based on that?

You know who you want to vote for and are just wanting to find an excuse for doing so. That is OK, just vote your heart and quit trying to justify it.

And where was that report from Guy?

Exactly what would you have had, troops entering the city on the CIA's request?

Not conventional troops. Teams from CIA Special Operations Group, or from Joint Special Operations Command. Special Operators can be deployed anywhere in the world in much less time than this attack went on.

An air raid, even by Predator drones, could have also helped scatter the attackers. They should have done something.

Surprising that you would cite a FOX news source for your input...

Why would you not question the source.

Does FOX News have any more answers for you?

Does NBC & CNN have more answers for you?

According to the news release on Fox, there were drones in the area capable of recording real time, I don't see where it says the President was watching.

And I'm not so ready to take the word of the CIA or any of its operatives.

And so you think American military should have been deployed there, put on the ground. And then what?

I'm still not getting why people are so obsessed about the reasons why the violence occurred. If it had been the video, most likely factions unfriendly to the US would have whipped up the rage. I'm not sure what a "handful of terrorists" constitutes, either.

I do know one thing about terrorists: their main goal is not to kill, that's just a side benefit. Perhaps what they were aiming for was us to send troops, have you thought of that?

And Whitese7en, before you start another rant about helicopter rescues and real time drones and other scenarios straight out of The Unit reruns, I want to say one word to you: Mogadishu.

Here's a news article on the drone.

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

A quote from the article is this: "the last two Americans didn't die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important."

What is also important is that at no time did anyone on the ground believe that there was any kind of protest going on, nor should have anyone at the White House. There was no protest. Period. That means that someone made it up, and the administration either bought someone else's lie, or they are the ones who made it up. Either way they are responsible. They should have known before they went all over the news spreading lies, dishonoring the men who died.

What is your source for the statement that they (the President...) watched in real time? You are apparently ignorant of the fact that the United States cannot enter the airspace of another sovereign nation without the permission of that nation without risking war, as such intrusions are considered to be acts of war? As I see what has been written it is clear that clarity was absent. From the outside looking in it is easy to make negative comments, for all the power of this nation the Presidency is not omnipotent and omniscient. Initial reports are usually wrong, terrorists sometimes claim "responsibility" for things they had nothing to do with, what first appears to have happened may not be what has in fact happened, but you want to have it both ways. You want the initial report to be the final report and no process of finding the truth. Good luck with that. It's an excellent smear tactic, but bad for the country.

Ken's comments about sovereignty of other nations is important to remember. If Americans attacked a consulate in Mpls of a foreign nation would it be okay for that nation to send in troops (in theory at least)? I think not. So why should we automatically assume we can do that in other sovereign nations? I do not think we should politicize this as it feeds right into the terrorist game plan. They want us divisive with each other. The President is right. We need to get the facts, and then seek out justice. Just like we have been doing. More with special forces than with armies.

It's a reference to a disastrous military rescue attempt where the enemy was waiting for us.

Whitese7en, you seem very comfortable with sending our people into potentially deadly situations. And if the President had, and we'd had more soldiers die, and be dragged through the streets like in MOGADISHU, you would have complained about that, too.

I'm very sorry that our people died. But seven hours doesn't really provide enough time for an effective rescue plan, does it?

To Whitese7en: I did not mention planes either, but then you are very quick to assume a lot of things. Some reality for you: The details of what was happening, when, and who knew what should be national security secrets, the digging up of which serves to strengthen the hand of the enemy and the Republican Party. Hmm... It should be a state secret but since we may be able to gain some political advantage in saying shoulda coulda woulda we will release these state secrets to the enemies of the United States in the name of patriotism and furthermore we will spin it so it looks like the President is indecisive and careless. That's easy. Democrats could have had a field day with Bush's response on 9-11 but they did not. In the Libya attack, if you remember the context of the day's events you may remember that earlier in the day a furor had erupted across the Middle East because of a video made by an Israeli expatriate living in the United States being spread on the internet by an Egyptian expatriate living in the United States that insulted the prophet Mohammed. It is quite likely that when all is said and done that the video uproar was the opportune moment to unleash a preplanned attack, and that is what occurred. Libya as host government bears the responsibility for protecting foreign diplomats including those of the United States. This is international law. You seem to forget other nations' sovereignty and the value of keeping state secrets.

There was time to take potentially preemptive measures but once the attack occurred, there was no ability to stop the damage that was done. Keep watching FOX News and parroting their B.S. It lends great credibility to your words.

Would that be the Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney? The one who has NEVER served in the military, and whose company - oh, excuse me, FORMER company - made big bucks out of the Iraq war?

How is Benghazi different from Mogadishu, please? You didn't even know what Mogadishu was three hours ago. Come on, three paragraphs or less.

And these would be people who would actually be the ones risking their lives, Whitese7en? Because there are a lot of second-guessers out there sitting behind big desks. Our other candidate, whose son is NOT serving, is one of them.

What an complete embarrassment you are to the dialogue on this Patch.

John, I agree. This guy is a billboard for FoxNews and his (and Fox's) agenda is hurting AMERICA, not just the president. Way to go, Whitese7en, you have single-handedly told us all what happened and outlined the President's errors. Unfortunately, you are full of BS and unfounded facts, but good try, all the same!

Hm, Whitese7en,

Well, I wouldn't know about risking lives ... except that I was a military spouse who lived in a time of terrorism in Europe and nearly got blown up myself, and whose children were threatened. And whose husband served. Oops, lose on that score.

LEADING people who risk their lives doesn't count, but I will grant you that anybody who serves in government risks their lives every day. For example, we have so many homegrowns who threaten our library systems, did you know that? And President Obama, putting himself out there every day, risking his life and his family's lives, not just from the terrorists overseas, but from our own home-grown bigots who can't stand to see a black man in power. That's courage.

Of COURSE this is about Mitt Romney's sons. You start talking about how other parents' kids should go into a hazardous situation, then maybe you should know how it feels.

The ineptitude in the White House, as you put it, did not lead to these people's deaths. News flash: this was a hazardous post going in, and this great man knew it.

Maybe you ought to chew on that before you start squawking about government pensions and paychecks, seeing as you're so CONCERNED about these dead Americans.

And I don't see any explanation how you think Benghazi and Mogadishu are so different.

Whitese7en, the simple explanation is this:

The warlords in Mogadishu saw us coming and whipped up the fear, because the of UN forces that had slaughtered Somalis. Nobody knows how many Somali were involved, but not all of them were fighters. Some were just angry and scared. There might have been 160 initial forces consisted of that many forces, but once that got bogged down, the general in charge committed forces as soon as they were available, battalion sized forces.

Good wiki try, though.

Also .. so a couple of dozen terrorists equals a handful? I was unsure of that.

And as for the secretary of state ... who was it?

See, as you say, I'm an idiot, so I need the little facts.

You know what, I'm getting bored by this, so I asked my husband, who is an ex-military infantry/military intelligence officer who planned operations, if a rescue could be planned in six or seven hours.

"Oh, HELL no," he said, surprised. "Maybe six or seven days." He went on to explain that Delta Forces, Special Forces, whatever, are extremely detailed oriented. They want success. They also want to come back, although that's a secondary concern.

And Whitese7en, you think it's easy to take on a couple of dozen terrorists? I invite you to volunteer yourself.

Michele, I don't have military training or experience, but what you say is plain old common sense. There is no way that we would put more Americans in harms way without knowing the details and the specifics of what was happening on the ground. If we did, common sense tells us that there would have been more American lives lost, not less. People like Mr. White... are full of bluster and nothing else. They get their limited information from Fox and ignore the bias, because they hear what they want to hear.

We don't know yet what happened. All we hear is what is put out by the government and the media. The government has reasons for keeping secrets from the public....think of the bin Ladin mission, and I don't mind that as long as the truth comes out when all the facts are evident, and the proof is provided.

Promoting this "Obama could/should have done more" agenda at this point is dangerous, disingenuous, and just plain foolish.

I too am a veteran and am really disappointed how some people want to pile on the President in times of crisis for political purposes. The American thing to do is to stand together as Americans and figure out how to prevent such incidents from happening again. This Whitese7en is an embodiment of what is wrong with the radicals (not all) of the Republican party.

And might I add, thank you to your husband, and to you and your family. It is not said often enough that our military families are actually the ones at war, not our country. You seem to be lost in the shuffle, and although people are now recognizing your sacrifices, you are not rewarded enough! John, the same to you and your family and all those other military families who might read this.

Why, thank you, Susan! Although I must say that I think military families today have it so much harder. We were regular military, so we had the support of our community and our world was designed for us. Now, the government uses the Guard and the Reserves, and their families are left out there trying to deal with the separation, without the understanding from their community. Talk about waging war on the cheap!

Thank you Susan. It is a much appreciated sentiment that seems to get lost in all this political rhetoric. Speaking of politics and who will take care of whom, Through the Veterans Administration's programs that offers opportunities to disabled veterans, I was able to complete my college degrees this spring. I am very concerned about what opportunities will be afforded to our to our existing and future Veterans should a President Romney administration become a reality.

One of my son's best friends joined the Marines last year. He came to visit us last weekend. We have known this young man since he was in grade school. He walked in the door and I hugged him hard. I do not personally know anyone else in the military and I almost cried when I saw him. Fortunately it does not sound like he will be deployed to the middle east anytime soon, but even from a distance, I was overwhelmed at his commitment and his family's sacrifice. "Grateful" is not a strong enough word and I think this country should be doing more for our military families. I posted some information (way) above about what Obama has done for the military since he has taken office. I fear what Gov. Romney will do...or should I say NOT do. Stay strong! You are not forgotten.

Hmm, does calling people "idiot" win in your own life? Cause it sure doesn't here.

My husband says that you're wrong about 160 American forces. And who are these militiamen? Who armed them?

You are talking about a country where warlords were fighting. There was no organized government. Any more than there is in Libya.

And now a lesson about terrorists: they always have another agenda. This was a TRAP. They WANTED us there.

And what you always do is read Fox News. Like I said, you're boring.

Whitese7en, I cannot speak for the others, but in my opinion, we have moved past your biased and uninformed posts and will focus on reality and wait for the real facts to come forward. You are entitled to your opinion, and the first amendment allows you to voice it, but no one requires that we further promote your idiocy by engaging with you. Have a good night/weekend, and I hope that you can loosen your grip on that hate and work to bring this country together vs promoting your agenda to further divide it.

"Would any of you Obamabots"

Why would anyone respond to someone who lowers themselves to name calling?

Didn't your Mama teach you any manners?

The term 'having balls' or 'having big balls' is a common term for someone that is brave or not afraid to step up to the plate; it is a common way of indicating bravado, courage; GUTS. In the context of the man's bravery I do not find this insulting. I might have chosen better words myself and maybe Vice President Biden should have in this case used different words. But we all know VP Biden is one of those regular guy types from Scranton and talks without feeling the need to filter every word. So take offense in his language if you must but do not take offense in his pointing out the bravery of the fallen American who died serving his country.

I really don't care if you call yourself a Republican or not, Whitese7en. I know and love a few Republicans. What I see, is that you are somebody all too ready to send other Americans into harm's way, and maybe you watch too much t.v. Pretty much, that's it... Yep, that's it.

Oh, honey, not likely. Do you have any idea how much military officers have to study and read military history? He hasn't stopped doing that. He studies military history all the time, and he is brilliant. Time to start looking at the websites you visit.

Whitse7en, you don't happen to fly a couple flags and have a few sandwich board signs in your yard, do you?

Susan

Nice comment -- this is why I dont choose to have conversations with you. You claim to be so above personal insults - but eventually you always do.

Al, how on earth is this an insult? There happens to be someone in my neighborhood who has two flags and three sandwich boards with some of this same heavily biased, Fox News blather that is coming from this writer. Being as this person is in the same town, I simple asked him a question.

Stop trying to hold me to some higher standard than everyone else here. If you want to police my comments, that's fine, but you will be very busy. Have a great day. BTW, the first amendment also gives me the right to write as I see fit...even if it means that I am a hypocrite in your eyes, which I could care less about...well, other than I have apparently become your little irritation, and THAT makes me smile.

This person (Whitese7en) is really not worth engaging...

But it wasn't a snarky comment! I was asking a sincere question.

If I had asked the question because of a silly stereotype or generalization, or if it was meant with sarcasm, you would have a point. But I asked this person a serious question in reference to someone in my neighborhood. There was no hidden agenda, only a sincere question.

Al, there is a difference with name-calling that is meant only in a disrespectful manner vs calling out actual behavior. Just because a comment has a negative tone does not mean it is foolish name calling. Sometimes calling a pot black is simply calling a pot black....

Seriously it was not! If I had a way to post a picture, I would show you a picture of my neighbor's house....who I thought might have been you.

I understand that people here jump to this type on conclusion because so many people fall into that type of rhetoric here on Patch, but if you click on my name, and read my comments, you will see that I do not do this...no matter what Al says. He and I are on different sides of the political debate and whenever I counter an argument he says I am insulting someone, when in fact I might just be stating a fact. Once again, my question was sincere, there was no hidden agenda, no attempt to be underhanded, and it was not an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I would come right out and do it. I don't need to be underhanded, I say what I mean.

Your words here reminded me of my neighbors words posted outside his home for all to see...that's all. Period. And BTW, I don't think people who fly the American Flag are rednecks, I think they are patriotic.

Whitese7en, I just uploaded that picture to my profile. If you click on my name and then on "profile photos", look down below the picture of the cat, and you can click on the picture and neighbor that I was talking about, to enlarge it. Being as it looks like you are from the same town, I just ask that you don't disclose the location if you recognize it.

I will delete the pic after a little while. I have gone to this effort in a attempt to make you see that I DID NOT post this comment in an effort to stereotype you.

Jesse, because I am a business owner and often talk politics and religion here on Patch, I choose not to give my full name. Many business owners do the same.. As we saw earlier this year, it can be dangerous to the business's bottom line to publicly come out on political issues.

This is getting tiresome always having to refute all the nefarious allegations. Not everyone here is underhanded and sinister.

Jesse I agree 100%!

Keynesian economics are the only wide spread economic that are accepted by nearly all economic experts. Your supply side economics was invented in the 80s and has been shown, through practical application to be damaging to the economy Even the first George Bush called it Voo Doo Economics.

Keynesian economics accepted by most economic experts. HAHAHA!

You mean the big spending,, print money out of thin air approach that has doomed this country, is crushing Europe and drew out the Great Depression for years? Keynesian economics may well as be called "make the most people miserable as possible economics"

If you looked at the picture, you can clearly see it was an American Flag, I would have no reason to think Confederate Flag, because I was talking about this neighbor, and not insinuating anything.

When you click on a person's name, you can see their local Patch. This may be wrong if you happened to sign on to Patch in a town that was not where you lived. I clicked on your name, saw the city which is the same as mine, and thought about my neighbor because of your written words. It really doesn't make any difference in regards to the issue, it was only curiosity.

All this, just to prove I wasn't making a snotty comment....
What's funny about it is that I had insulted you in other comments here, but the innocent one is the one that got all the attention. Lesson learned, and I apologize for my sincere insults (but not the flag comments)...haha, I guess that's the only way to put it.

Oh, and the picture was taken in the winter of 2010-2011 when we had all that snow.

Must be a glitch in the system. Did you maybe originally sign on in Stillwater? Or maybe it doesn't always work like that if you are out of state. I guess I'm not sure, but usually when you click on someone's name the Patch heading at the top is where they made their original profile.

Haha, no wonder the snow shocked you! It must be because you are so far away that the system doesn't recognize the location and so it defaults back to mine....but that's only a guess.

Okay, I didn't mean to make this thread all about me, so I will back out now unless someone post something directed at me.

Al, I do hope you have read this and maybe even checked out the picture. I will be deleting it shorty as I don't think I should leave it public.

buckhead--nice place.

Not to be confused with "The Spectator", a British magazine which promoted Hitler and fascism, this is the American neo-fascist version of the magazine. Hardly a reputable mainstream source it has a very limited circulation. It claims the two Seals were ordered to stand down and disobeyed orders resulting in their deaths. First time I have heard that claim, I wonder where the far-right storytellers are headed with this. In this month's "Leatherneck" that I just got there is a story on the four victims that is more legitimate and doesn't slander them.

This is delusional. I just went to foxnews.com and did a search on their front page page for any headline containing "Benghazi" and there wasn't a single article on there (out of probably 100+ headlines displayed.

At some point, you are going to have to face the fact that this is more of a conspiracy theory than a news issue on the level that people like yourself are trying to make it. Otherwise, don't you think that it would be the top story on the Foxnews website or at least qualify for a single headline on the front page of their site? Or is your media conspiracy theory now going to lump the Foxnews website as part of the so called "liberal media?"

No, Watts, you have to go to FOXNews.com, not the delusional FAUXNews.com.

And when you do you will see this as the first link on Latest News:
"Sources: Communication failure during Libya attack - FBI granted access to consulate attack suspect"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/02/sources-emails-point-to-communication-breakdown-in-obama-administration-during/?test=latestnews

The only thing delusional here is the Left's Sgt Shultz attitude to anything stupid or wrong this admin has done... "I SEE NOTHING....."

The only conspiracy theory here is the one in your head that justifies your dismissive attitude about a murdered ambassador and the near-fanatical belief that a ridiculous youtube video from months ago just happened to set off a spontaneous attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

Which is more plausible? That these fanatics would wait months to react to the video or that this was a planned attack carried out on the symbolic date of 9/11? Occam's Razor tells us it's the latter. Only consistent MSDNC channel watchers could come to a different conclusion.

I do not believe your blackout theory in the least. I believe it is possible a person dressed in Libyan police garb may have taken photos in the consulate, this is certainly not blacked out in the media, there is just not much factual information. Hiding "sources" behind the acceptable term "conservative" doesn't make them any less biased. In the past thirty years the country has swung radically right. Fox News was the first of many major news outlets taken over by right-wing ownership with an eye on turning the nation to the right. as opposed to left, wing, and they threw journalistic integrity out the window. Many others followed, in a purchasing spree by right-wing investors who saw value in what clearly has become propaganda. If you isolate yourselves in right-wing lalaland you will believe the stories you hear from right-wing lalaland writers and everything else will seem a strange fiction. The Fourth Estate is not dead, despite the efforts of the right-wing to kill it. Not having watched Nightline I have no comment on it. I know international media have reported on nationwide voter suppression efforts in an unflattering light. I haven't heard much about that international impression of America in previous election cycles since the sixties. Marching backward in time won't help us. What are our policies leaving our kids? a dying planet with no transportation? Go ahead, bury your head in the sand, hide in your comfort zone. Deny reality.

I did the same, and there are dozens of articles on Benghazi - the attack, the involvement of the president, the run-up, etc etc.

Maybe you spelled it wrong?

I said that I did a search on page for headlines that foxnews felt important enough to list on the front of their site. That is different from what it sounds like you did, which is to enter the term into the search engine, which will then bring up any article using the term in their archives.

But David did find the one article on Libya on the front of the Fox site, buried half way down as a single line. But what I find funny is that article from Fox, actually seems to defeat this whole conspiracy theory that there is some cover up. It is just talking about bad communications that could have gone better if better procedures had been in place. Again, not exactly ground breaking news, which is why it isn't even a priority article on Fox.

Read more carefully,Watts. I said it was the top link under Latest News which is on the front page. I just gave you the link because Patch won't let me post a screen shot of the front page. Scroll down the main page to Latest News and you will see it.

Oh, and it's also a story that Fox have been covering since 9/11. To make the specious claim, as Watts does, that the constant drip, drip of BengaziGate stories should not bump down the page because of a silly little thing like a hurricane hitting New York City, then it's becoming quite clear where the delusional issues lie.

This election is going to be about the Economy and Jobs (Conservatives had this correct long ago). The race isn't going to be about Benghazi - no matter if Foxnews runs it 24x7.

I have read a couple of updates today:

1) There were two special ops teams en route - one from North Carolina and another from Europe - and even if there had been a quick reaction team the Consulate was attacked by heavy weapons fire and 150+ attackers - the two former SEAL's were killed in a mortar attack at a CIA Annex - a completely different location from the Consulate - we don't even know if a quick infusion of additional resources would have saved anyone or if there just would have been more dead bodies around on both sides.

2) The two dead former SEAL's were working for the CIA and that news organizations had agreed to not release that information per requests from the CIA and there are questions coming up with the whole security mechanism, what was really in place, etc....

No doubt this is quite a mess and we may or may never sort it all out in the public arena, however, in the end it isn't a voting issue - as the Conservatives were correct in the past - its about Jobs and the Economy.

I did go to the page and how I saw it. OK, I didn't get out the ruler when I said "half way down" and I see that it is a third of the way down. Does that make you happy? The point being that it isn't one of the top stories. When you do page layout, your most important stories are present when the scroll bar is flush to the top. It doesn't appear there and it doesn't even appear in the next set of articles when you scroll down, which are the sections with inset photos that accompany the articles and/or videos. It is doen into the third section of the page that runs under a generic header called "latest news" which are a series of pure text headlines with a single line of description. It is the "also of interest to our reader base" type of section and not a priority news item as dictated by how Fox has placed it on their site.

Also, the vast majority of the articles that Fox did give priority over this don't have to do with the hurricane. Picture it this way, right now there is a breaking news headline across the top of the page that the NYC marathon has been cancelled and there are four other articles all about the marathon, that Fox has listed in the priority news sections above the one and only Libya article on the front of their site.

Here is the news agency that all conservatives bow down to for their agenda setting and even they are saying that something seemingly as irrelevant as whether or not to run a marathon is worthy of 5 priority news spots above the "oh, yeah...and this also happened" section that the one and only front page Libya article resides in. Personally, I don't think that prioritizing is fair either, but it does pretty much negate the idea that this is a "liberal media" conspiracy.

And the realty is that Libya isn't the conspiracy theory that the conservative fringe is trying to make out of it either. It was a tragic event and it was plastered across every news agency for weeks and that is just how news cycles go and if there was some real issue, then it would be getting reported.

@rob_h78

"as the Conservatives were correct in the past - its about Jobs and the Economy"

"It's the economy, stupid" is the famous line of James Carville, which he used against George H W Bush, while campaign manager for Bill Clinton. You remember Bill Clinton don't you? He was president for the 8 most prosperous years that our generation has ever seen and is now out there supporting Obama.

So I am not sure where you get the idea that the Republicans are some sort of lock on the economy. I get that they always talk about it, but historically they are have always been the party in power at times where our nation has gone through economic downturns. We still haven't fully pulled out of the last Republican tail spin.

@Watts "So I am not sure where you get the idea that the Republicans are some sort of lock on the economy."

My apologies for the confusion. The Republicans were telling us for a long, long time that this election was going to be all about the Economy and Jobs (which I believe at the end of the day that those two factors will be the primary consideration when people who are not die hard Conservatives or Liberals will vote on).

However, at the last minute the Conservative Media has suddenly pivoted to Benghazi when we don't know all of the facts but they have seized on this (just randomly turn on Foxnews for example and odds are they will be talking about Benghazi (previously it was wall to wall cover on Fast and Furious).

They know that they are losing the argument on the Economy and Jobs (of course they won't admit it) but if they truly thought that they could win on that - particularly in the Swing States Romney MUST win - they would be going wall to wall on it but they aren't...

They have seized on an issue - that simply is not a voting issue for the people who will decide this election.

If Romney loses (and we won't know until Tuesday night who will win) then I suspect the Conservatives will say that they didn't go "Conservative Enough"...

Republicans definitely don't have any argument left for jobs and economy, which is why they are using these other things for their frontal assault.

I also pretty much think that everybody "knows" now what will happen on the 6th. Even that isn't close anymore when you look at the electoral votes and the leanings of just about all swing states toward Obama. Nate Silver's calculations now only show Romney with a 14.9% chance of winning. SO even if you say that these methodologies can be flawed, there is even so much buffer room in those figures that it would take a November surprise in Romney's favor, over the next 48 hours to potentially change anything.

But what I believe that we will see are the extremists blaming it on not having gone conservative enough, but you will also have the reasonable, centrist part of the party that hasn't yet left, point out the obvious. The extreme wing extorted each member to pander to that branch so much during the primaries that no matter who had won, they would have an impossible job moving to the center for the general election without the doing the flip flopping on every issue, that Romney has done.

"Fox News was the first of many major news outlets taken over by right-wing ownership with an eye on turning the nation to the right. as opposed to left, wing, and they threw journalistic integrity out the window."

If that's true, then they came about 30 years late to the party. As CBS, NBC, ABC, NYTimes, etc. have been left-wing mouthpieces for decades. If Ken is correct then it's about time we had some 'fair and balanced' representation in the news media.

Buying a news outlet with the purpose of pushing an agenda is a recipe for bankruptcy. Trust is all you have to sell. When you are clearly pushing an agenda, trust is lost.

That said, every story can be reported from different points of view, and there are very different ideas of what is an "important" story.

It is foolish to depend on any single outlet or group of outlets with the same worldview. No one has a monopoly on the truth. No news outlet is "unbiased".

Come Wednesday morning, the DFL and their Propaganda Ministry, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, and MPR are going to be the ones crying in the wilderness.

However you want to position Fox News is your deal.... But the facts show that Fox has been consistently reporting the issues in New Jersey and Staten Island, and the lack of response by FEMA and the Federal Government to get boots on the ground to help.

The main stream media, when they do talk about the slow response to the disaster, are explaining all of the "hurdles" to get help and supplies to the victims. Funny thing is it was Bush's fault in the days following Katrina, and the administrations fault for the lack of help. Today the MSM is saying it takes time to get everything mobilized and in place.

Lets see..... They knew this storm was coming for days, there was no reason for them not to be prepared, and they failed miserably in being ready to provide help. They could have had support teams headed towards the region, and they could have been there to help in hours, and not days to weeks like they are now...

If Katrina and the lack of fast enough response was Bush's fault, then Sandy and the lack of help is clearly Obama's fault...

When was Fox right on some issues? I must have not been watching that day. It must have been about the weather or something. If it was about politics, you are wrong. They have lied so much, and pushed their agenda so hard, that they were at risk of having to drop "News" from their title. Because they are clearly not news. You watch Fox because it confirms the anti-Obama, racist screaming that you hear on Hate Radio every day. Suggestion: try listening to music at work. Much more soothing, and far less fiction and bigotry.

This is deplorable! Nick, this is in part, why, even as a Democrat, I have strong views against most unions.

My personal opinion?

Everyone in the news business is human. People have worldviews, and see everything according to worldview.

Journalism has long had an ethic of revealing "the truth". Those in the business have slowly shifted in their stance from being humble reporters to being slightly elite authorities. Since they know "the truth", they believe they have a responsibility to promulgate it. Unfortunately, it is no longer "the truth", but the truth that they prefer. Like it or not, they are no longer dispassionately pursuing the truth, but defending conventional wisdom, which is ironically the "establishment" orthodoxy.

I believe that the approach in places like Britain is better, where journalistic biases are overt and explicit.

Susan, I don't think there is a "mainstream media". There are so many choices now that people can easily select the news source that they trust or enjoy the most. We have two major newspapers in the Twin Cities. The Pioneer Press leans right while the StarTribune leans left. I typically purchase a Pioneer Press simply because their crossword grid is bigger.

My point is that the readers/listeners/viewers ultimately determine what media is "mainstream" and what is marginal. About 3/4 of the network evening news viewers are aged 55 or over. Younger age groups are much more likely to get their TV news from cable where Fox dominates.

In most one-newspaper towns, the newspaper is biased towards the politcal leanings of that community. My newspaper growing up was the Fairmont Sentinel. It's very right-leaning. Newspapers on the Iron Range are pro-union.

I think the public steers the media much more efficiently today than in the past. If there truly is an overall media "bias" on an issue, then it's a pretty safe bet that it's a result of the public's overall bias/perception/understanding.

Susan,

A lot of them are indoctrinated in the universities they attend. I'm an alumni of Duke University and when I was in school back in the early 80s, all of my professors were liberal and whenever they got the chance, they would espouse their liberal beliefs and try to get the students to go along with them. Not only is it a belief that the liberal pov is the right pov, but it's also a matter of indoctrinating the students as to the inherent evil of Republicans. Based on my college experience, I think it begins in the universities.

And in answer to your question, I think the answer is yes, they truly do think that it's the right direction for the country, but mostly because it's the opposite direction that the evil Republicans want to take us in.

Hi Susan,
The role of journalism--the mantra--used to be "comfort the afflicted...and afflict the comfortable." In other words journalism's goal is to "fight for the little guy." To take on huge corporations, political machines, police departments, etc. that were abusing power and hurting workers, their families, children, etc. At the turn of the last century, when you had horrible working and living conditions and a few people at the top had all the money, journalists used to fight this abuse. New York, around 1900, had dozens of newspapers! It became a job that attracted smart, socially-conscious young people, and except for FOX, it remains true to this day. Fox is run by a very rich, very mean, very bigoted old Australian with a lot of hate in his heart. Fox News became the TV version of hate radio, and it was a natural for people who listen to that to turn on FOX News.

First of all, let's separate beat reporters (95% of reporters) from editorial boards, columnists and political reporters (the remaining 5%). Beat reporters do not consider themselves "elite," nor do they going into any story knowing "the truth." They conduct interviews and uncover information in pursuit of the truth.

That's how I was taught journalism at UW-Madison and how any reputable journalism school teaches it today. So the next time you read or view a hard news story on a shooting or a fire or the opening of a community center, see if you can detect the political slant or "indoctrination" of the reporter.

The rise of blogging and even forums like this contributes more to the sense of bias people perceive than any legitimate form of journalism. According to completecampaigns.com, "Not only does the liberal media claim have no basis in fact, it also does not make sense considering the issue of media ownership and influence of advertisers. Most media outlets are owned by a handful of conservative corporations and individuals, and funded by usually economically conservative advertisers."

Thanks to all for your answers. Still looking for Nick and Joyce (and anyone else) to add their opinions. This subject interests me so I think I will do a little more research on this as well.

Susan, I didn't answer because you asked that question directly to me before. I thought you were asking the opinions of others.

My basic answer is that Journalism is a Liberal Art, and professors in the Liberal Arts are nearly all very liberal. Self-described Marxists outnumber self-described Republicans 5 to 1. When college students, who are impressionable, are in an environment where they are being taught liberal views in a liberal culture, there is no reason to think past those views. Students who hold strong conservative viewpoints are outcast and will probably change majors. The drive to "fit-in" in college is strong.

Once those liberal students are in the workplace, it is the same thing. They are among liberal people in a liberal culture. There is no self-serving reason to start exploring dissenting viewpoints. Conservatives are constantly mocked and demonized in liberal cultures, and who wants to be mocked and demonized every day at work?

I am an outspoken conservative in a government union workplace. How popular do you think that makes me? My problem is that I enjoy going against the grain and being outcast. I thrive on conflict and confrontation.

The other half of the answer is personality types. The personality type that leads someone to be liberal is also much more likely to lead someone to be a journalist, or a Liberal Arts college professor that teaches Journalism. Just like someone who is of a personality type that leads them to be conservative is also much more likely to be in the military or be an entrepreneur.

The same way he raised them. ;-)

Wm Shears,

I didn't change the subject, you did ...or attempted to anyway.

I never once said or even remotely implied that "all academics are liberal". I said "all of my professors" at Duke were liberal. Nowhere in my statement did I ever once make a blanket statement that "all academics are liberal". That was my experience at Duke while obtaining my BA. However, when I went to grad school a few years later, I had both liberal and conservative professors. Most of the professors in grad school were also liberal, but not all of them.

As for nurses, all the nurses I know are conservative church going Republicans.

It was liberals who were responsible for the collapse of our economy, not conservatives. Conservatives saw the handwriting on the wall and attempted to stave off that collapse way back in 2004 but were impeded at every turn by liberals. In fact, one of those liberals later admitted that they were wrong and that their actions led to the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which led to the collapse of the economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRMWm Shears,

Part 2
If conservatives are the scourge of the nation as you appear to believe,
then why is it that when I search for "Romney Supporters mugshots" I get nothing ...yet when I search for "Obama Supporters mugshots" I get the following.
http://www.motifake.com/facebookview.php?id=63881

Why are all Black Panther members liberal?

Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound saying "every hate crime is committed by a Teapublican"? What hate crimes have been committed by Teapublicans?

Are you aware of the tweets by Obama supporters saying they're going to riot if Romney wins? I've not seen one tweet like that from a Romney Supporter.
http://twitchy.com/2012/11/02/as-election-day-nears-obama-supporters-step-up-riot-threats/

Wm, why is it that when you describe liberals, you use generic words or phrases like "help people" and when you describe conservatives, you use words like "crooked" and "banksters"?

This makes you look like a bigot. You are obviously prejudiced against conservatives. Why?

And please tell me about some hate crimes that were attributed to the Tea Party. Here's a question for you. Remember Occupy Wall Street? How they were destroying public parks and property, attacking street vendors and destroying their carts, defecating everywhere, sending dozens of New York City police officers to the hospital, attempting to shut down ports and bridges, etc. etc.

Would you rather have a Tea Party member living next door or an Occupy Wall Street member?

As for the KKK, it was started by democrats.

Whitese7en, my comment was meant to be a little funny, as I think Chris' was as well.

I understand that gas was under $2 when he took office. I guess the point is (recently) if he is to be blamed for gas prices going up (which, from all the reading I have done, doesn't seem to support this opinion), then why does he not get credit when gas prices come down?

BTW, I also remember the late summer of 2006 when gas prices were almost exactly what they are today.

Please espouse as to what President Bush did to bring down gas prices down. If you are referring to his executive order that lifted moratoriums on off shore drilling, you should read up a little more about cause and effect.

"Bush's Action Was Symbolic, Did Not Translate To Lower Prices. In July 2008, at a time of record high gasoline prices, President Bush lifted the executive offshore drilling moratorium first instituted by his father. Bush used the announcement to pressure the Democratic-controlled Congress to lift its own long-standing ban on offshore drilling. As Reuters reported at the time, the action was "a largely symbolic bid unlikely to have any short-term impact on high gasoline costs." The article noted that, "The U.S. Energy Department's forecasting arm has said opening the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions to drilling 'would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.'" [Reuters, 7/14/08]"

"Energy Experts Say This Claim Is "Nonsense," And "Not Correct." Joseph M. Dukert, senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and former president of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics said the claim that Bush's announcement caused the drop in prices is "nonsense" and "akin to the rooster's boast that his crowing brought the sun up." Michael Canes, former Chief Economist of the American Petroleum Institute, also said the claim is "not correct in my view," noting that "Coincidence is not causation, and in this instance I'd say that the two events - the lifting of the moratoria and the ensuing reduction in oil prices - are much more in the coincidence realm than one of causation." Canes added:

Most oil market experts believe that the rapid and sustained reduction in oil prices that began in 2008 and extended beyond occurred because the world economy began to slow down and ultimately to experience a deep recession. This is one way to reduce oil prices, but not a very attractive one. [Media Matters, 3/8/11]"

Bush didn't get credit because no credit was due....unless you consider the economy failing, and ultimately collapsing, under his watch.

In addition, the drop in gas prices were more attributed to the failing economy and lack of demand for gas. Conversely, the rise in gas prices under the present administration is attributed to an increase in demand here and abroad.

Mitt Romeny actually said the read an article that morning about Jeep moving production to China. The article was based on a poorly-worded press release from Jeep, that was supposed to say that they were ramping up China production. Unfortunately, the writer of the article didn't get that impression from the press release, and his article was incorrect.

Bigfuut, if that's the case, then it's just another example of Romney making statements before he has the facts. Loose lips sink ships. I don't think that's a quality we want in our President.

You're right. Romney shouldn't have based his speech on something that was reported in the media, since they certainly don't have the facts correct.

Speaking of opening someone's mouth before having the facts, is that anything like Obama blaming the death of our ambassador in Libya on a youtube video?

Wow!!

That's all you have to say?

Don't you care to defend your previous ridiculous comment?

What are all these hate crimes that have been committed by Teapublicans?

First, I just want to say that yes, I am doing a lot of copy/pasting here. You have given me reason to do more research and what I am finding is written better than I could ever hope to do. I am not finding anything (that is not partisan) in relation to Bush's announcements and the the oil prices dropping. And BTW, I have been called a moderate Democrat...fiscally Conservative, yet socially liberal. When the two conflict on an issue, I do lean liberal...just so you know. (look at my comment above about unions).

And excerpt: "But there's far more to oil's big price plunge. SemGroup, of course, was now out of business, and as similar behavior came to a halt at other firms, oil lost its upward momentum. Enter the financial crisis, which dealt the finishing blow. The dollar had weakened during the first revelations of the mortgage crisis, but as that situation spun out of control into an international credit crisis, the currency markets favored the U.S. dollar. Since oil is traded internationally, as the dollar gained value, the price of oil in
 dollars had to come down. A weakening dollar played a role on the way up; a strengthening dollar on the way down. But the euro has dropped only 20%, and oil, three times that. So currency is not the whole story but certainly is a major trigger."

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1859380,00.html

You're absolutely right Nick, weak dollars do buy less oil.

However, in 2008, that had nothing to do with the high prices we were paying. If it would have, President Bush going on the air that afternoon would have had no effect on oil prices.

My comment in regard to this President, is based on the results achieved by President Bush in July of 2008. It was the mere thought that we would begin drilling, that brought the price down in July of 2008. I believe this President has sent a message to those we buy our oil from, as well as the speculators, that when push comes to shove, he is going to side with the environmentalists as he did in the Keystone pipeline deal. What message this sends, is that we're not serious about tapping into our own energy resources. In 2008, it was only after the President sent a message that we were serious about tapping in to our oil supply that the oil prices began falling.

You are absolutely right. Pricing, ESPECIALLY pricing that is driven in part by speculators, is based largely on perception, not always reality. If speculators perceive that the government is friendly toward domestic energy production, the price goes down, regardless of any real-world conditions. The opposite is also true.

Why did Bush let it happen under his watch?

Susan, President Bush tried to stop it, but in the aftermath of 9-11, there weren't enough republican polititians that would step forward to support tightening up credit to home buyers. The economy was doing well, and few realized at that time what the loose credit would lead to.

Our government is not a business. Businesses are created to generate a profit at the expense of others. That is not the purpose of a government. Also, do you really want to go into the qualifications of our President? I think not...

Oh that's right John Feia - you want to continue to let our Government operate like a Food Shelf! Are you sure Obama would even have "a list" of qualifications ? I think not!

ABSG, comparing our government to a business means you want it to make a profit. A profit requires more revenue....taxes!! As a Conservative, are you sure you want to be pedaling this mantra?

Not only is Romney not as good as you think (businesses had a 23% failure rate while he was in charge of them at Bain), he is deceitful. No economist in this country will stand up and say that his "plan" will ever work! It's a lot of BS to feed the ignorant...those not willing to actually check facts. Those that do find facts at Fox and associates are disingenuous, as they are afraid to look anywhere else. Please check into it some more....at least those with some level of honesty are saying that they are voting for Romney because they perceive him to be "less evil" vs. more honest. If that's your reason for voting for Romney, I have more respect for you than if you say it is because he is a good business man and/or is "plan" makes sense.

John, here's a list of Obama's qualifications when he was sworn in as president in January, 2009:
1.
2.
3.

That seems to be a pretty complete list.

Susan, you're forgetting that Bain Capital bought up many business that were bankrupt or about to go bankrupt. Saving 23% of them is actually a pretty good record.

How many businesses has Obama saved from bankruptcy?

President Obama saved thousands of businesses from bankruptcy. Without the stimulus money and the auto industry bailout, many more businesses such as restaurants, car dealers, construction companies would have gone under. Without federal aid to the states, many more state and local government employees would have been laid off. Obama extended unemployment benefits and reduced social security tax contributions. Obama helped people stay in their homes. The few companies Romney saved is nothing compared to the number of businesses saved by Obama's actions. AND, did it for the good of the country, not just for the good of his own wallet.

It's important to remember what the federal government did. Obama did not do it by himself. GW Bush started this process, and Obama continued it. It is noteworthy that Congress explicitly disallowed it, and Obama ignored the law. (TARP funds were for banks, not car companies)

Note that the only oath that Obama took on Jan 20th, 2009 was to "protect and defend the constitution". That is apparently less important than "saving" the "auto industry".

The Feds did not "save" the auto industry. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are only part of that industry - Honda, VW, Toyota, and others also build cars here. Ford said "no, thank you". Both GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, and the federal government twisted the arm of the bankruptcy court - a horrible precedent - to ensure that politically favored creditors got a better deal, and the companies "survived". By interfering in the bankruptcy, the feds got to choose which creditors to shaft, and which to reward. Again, a horrible precedent.

Chrysler "survived" by being sold off to investors from Italy. GM survived via massive infusions of taxpayer dollars. The feds still own a huge chunk of GM. The stock price of GM would have to go up (triple?) for the feds (taxpayers) to break even.

I believe that the tab on this was around $60 Billion, which the feds clearly don't have, so it was borrowed money.

Our children will pay the bill.

This is a good thing???

I'm getting pending approval again, so sorry if this ends up double-posting.

I appreciate your honesty on that. You have given me a couple things for further research. I like to do it on the weekends, when I have the time and if it is a topic that interests me. So for that, I thank you as well.

Please do read the Time piece that I linked above. Although I can see where you get your argument/opinion from, in regards to Bush and the falling gas prices, I learned quite a bit from the research I did today, and it does not seem to match up with Bush's announcement causing the prices to fall....as the one person I quoted said: "Bush's announcement caused the drop in prices is "nonsense" and "akin to the rooster's boast that his crowing brought the sun up."

In your mind a fact is a fact.(which it should be) That doesn't necessarily make it a fact.

ABSG, it's nice to read your stuff again.

p.s. whether you like it or not, he's your president too. :) I think at this point, all we can do is vote and cross our fingers.

Funny, Chris!

Amen!! We're doing our part here in Atlanta.

When the majority of recognized economists say that his plan doesn't add up, what does that say?

It probably says they don't understand the details.

On the other hand Obama's plan doesn't add, it multiplies - the deficit, inflation, the number of people on food stamps, ...

The idea of "peak oil" (the point where we will run out) has been around since 1859, when it was first exploited. This article: http://wellservicingmagazine.com/peak-oil-piques-prognosticator-interest is helpful.

Markets are amazing. I suspect that we will be using solar power, and other "green" technologies instead of (in addition to) oil in the future, but not because some politician gave money to Solyndra, but because some entrepreneur in a garage somewhere came up with some brilliant (or several brilliant) innovations that people found either useful or saved them $$.

http://www.investmentu.com/2007/January/20070122.html

Rationing petroleum is something only someone either profoundly ignorant of economics, or hostile to markets would suggest as a likely "solution" to scarcity.

Peak oil does not refer to the point where we run out of oil. You should know this if you run for office.

Peak oil refers to the point where oil production peaks and starts to ebb because we are finding fewer new sources of oil while old sources have reduced production. This happens because oil wells and oil fields slow down as they near the end of their useful life. New sources become harder and more costly to reach. It appears we already reached that point in the last few years.

There is still plenty of oil in the ground and America found plenty to last for years, but worldwide production rates will not keep growing.

The solution is not rationing petroleum, but developing alternatives. I personally drive an electric vehicle, so my transportation is 100% energy independent.

In light of Hurricane Sandy, a downfall of solar and wind power needs to be considered. I read an article that said that if New Jersey's power came from solar and wind, most likely the solar and wind plants would have been destroyed by the storm and they would have been without power for 6 to 12 months. Apparently, solar panels and windmills are much more vulnerable to environmental damage than conventional power plants.

In reality, no source of power is "safe" from natural disasters. Nuclear power is more robust in some cases, less in others. Look at the Tsunami in Japan. Wind and solar are less sensitive to "supply disruptions" because there is no "supply". (though the "supply" they use is notoriously unreliable) The Black Dog plant down by the Minnesota river flooded out a few years ago, and knocked that out for months, as I recall.

My point is not to say Nick is wrong. He's not. I only point out that it's all about tradeoffs, and nothing is perfect.

Nice try Ken, but the Bush Administration attempted to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the mismanagement/corruption of Democrats in 2004, who resisted them at every turn.

The only culpability that the Republicans have is that they allowed the Democrat's mismanagement/corruption to continue to compromise the safety and soundness of Freddie and Fannie unfettered, which ultimately led to the collapse of our economy.

Carter was ahead in the polls the whole time, too, in 1980. Although I could count my age on one hand at that time, I don't think he ended up winning. I believe it was one of the biggest electoral vote landslides ever.

I personally believe we're going to see a Romney landslide, although I'm not so optimistic as to say it will be as big as Reagan's.

Ahh, I always love when some uninformed conservative talking point perosn brings up this analogy of the Reagan/Carter myth. Admittedly, I was a child myself, but at least I took the time to research this. Reagan didn't win by his own will and campaigning, as much as he won by default from a rarely remembered spoiler in that race; John B. Anderson. All you ever hear is the Republican storyline that Carter was a weak president and Reagan came off so strong in the debates that the Iranians handed over the hostages because they were afraid to deal with him. I have heard that fantasy so many times and it is so ridiculous, that I can't believe that anybody believes it. The reality is that Carter f'd up by refusing to participate in a debate with Anderson on the stage, because he didn't feel that he was a proven candidate and had no party affiliation. But what happened was that Reagan didn't have anything to loose and debated Anderson, which then elevated Anderson in the perception of the public. So Anderson became a substantial spoiler for Carter. Carter lost both MA and AK by just a few thousand votes, where Anderson had gained hundreds of thousands of votes. And if Carter had not lost those two states as a result of Anderson being the spoiler, Carter would have been elected to a second term and the hostages still would have been released, as the arrangements had taken place under Carter.

All very similar to how Gore would have won if Nader hadn't been the spoiler.

Watts, you are misinformed to a rather shocking degree and why you would post such misinformation is beyond me.

Here are the facts: Reagan got 489 electoral votes. Carter got 49. Reagan won by 440 electoral votes. MA had 14 electoral votes; AK had 3. Carter would not have won if he had gotten 66 electoral votes to Reagan's 472.

Anderson only got 6.6% of the popular vote. Assuming that every single person who voted for Anderson would have voted for Carter, the electoral vote count would have been 331 Reagan to 207 Carter. That is still a win by 124 electoral votes.

I would call that a decisive hypothetical victory.

Even if I wasn't a fan of Romney, allowing Obama another 4 years to dig our country further into this hole is a certain recipe for disaster. One that we're likely to never make it out of.

Keith,

That is EXACTLY what this election comes down to. Every policy this President has implemented has done nothing but destroy incentive and thereby impede economic growth. We can not afford 4 more years of this President's redistributive economic policies.

Romney Ryan 2012

I feel it's a lie. Here's the truth, in 2 quotes from the article posted in this comment:

"the Romneys have paid state and federal income taxes in each of the past 20 years, with his lowest annual effective federal tax rate never dipping below 13.66 percent."

"the Romneys averaged an effective federal tax rate of 20.2 percent over the past 20 years and gave an average of 13.45 percent to charity."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/251019-romney-releases-20-year-average-tax-rate-but-only-2011-returns

Here's a question, Carole. Why do you care what anyone else pays in taxes? What's the obsession the Left has with what other people are paying in taxes? IRS data shows that the rich pay most of the taxes, and that their effective federal income tax rate is much higher than that of the lower and middle taxes. Just accept the data and move on. It's a strange thing to be obsessing over. We have a lot bigger problems than this silly distraction.

Also, Romney ran in 2008 as well. How did he know that he would lose his bid for the nomination in 2008, but win in 2012? If he knew he would lose in 2008, then why did he run? And why would you suddenly restructure your "tax shelters" based on a planned run for the nomination the second time that didn't work the first time?

This theory doesn't pass the sniff test, unless you're willing to believe Romney's either psychic or that he's so rich he could afford to send an informant ahead in time to 2012 who was feeding him information.

I feel great about it. Hearing this makes me want to vote for Romney all the more. Thank you!

Just think about how that shrewdness as a businessman would benefit the American economy. I want a guy in the office implementing policy that knows the most efficient way to run our government(which is a business by the way) which best stimulates economic growth. I can not think of another man more suited for that job than Governor Romney.

This song is a refrain heard often since about 1860. "Peak oil" for about the last 60 years, has always been about 20-30 years away. The "Peak" has always implied being "OUT" soon thereafter.

The reason why we won't run out of supply soon after peak oil is because our oil prices will begin rising dramatically. Like the summer of 2008, oil prices will rise and people will cut back on less necessary travel until prices moderate a bit. I do not want to see a future in which we cannot afford to transport food. That is why we MUST pursue alternatives like natural gas and electric transportation.

Why cares how many years they've been saying peak oil is coming?! If China begins using as much oil per person as America has, there aren't enough oil fields in the world. It doesn't matter where you drill at that point. Supply and demand takes over. Oil prices will skyrocket and food prices along with them. Climate change will also increase the severity of droughts and floods. Your rhetoric pushes us towards a future of famine-- plain and simple. What possible line of extreme dogma allows you to see otherwise? How do you propose we deal with this problem?

Markets are not something that spring up in case of shortage. They are functioning today, and they will function tomorrow - like it or not. The idea that the price of oil will go from paltry to incredible, causing instant famine, is ridiculous. Price swings will be moderated by those who anticipate the supply and demand, and alternatives will be used as necessary. Food consumption will moderate as prices rise.

Markets are not only fact, they are amazingly effective and efficient.

I find it interesting that on a couple of occasions I have attempted to begin a new discussion with new material (most recently this afternoon) but find that the new information seems to be totally ignored while another conversation will continue on and on even though the exact same points are being made over and over again. Is that the way this usually works?

You posted some information that has already been proven false. I don't think anyone wants to go down with that ship.

I would agree with you that "it seems only fair". However, there aren't enough rich people to make any difference. If the Buffet Rule were put in place, it would generate enough revenue to fund the government for 42 hours over a 10 year period. If you raised the federal tax rate for Fortune 500 companies to 100%, raised the federal income tax rate for people making over $250k to 100%, and took all the assets of every billionaire in the country, that would fund the government for 8 months.

Even though it seems fair, in reality it doesn't make any difference whether you tax the rich more or not. The only motivator here is some kind of social desire to exact revenge against the rich for being rich. That is not moral or honorable.

sorry chris-nick is correct...
just in the paper today- some leftie was blathering about how the "rich" should pay for the storm damage...
sometime there is not enough face to palm....

The only way to fix it it to tax EVERYONE the same RATE. NO exceptions.

Buffet rule (on all income) + Bush tax cuts expiring leads to revenues greater than $800 billion over 10 years. Thats not a small amount.

Ray, that's only if the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. 85% of the Bush tax cuts went to people earning less than $250k, so, yes, if you raise taxes for everybody, that does bring in a lot more money. But letting them expire for the rich isn't even a drop in the bucket, when you look at the size of our deficits.

Chris, your point about the rich getting richer is a great argument to keep tax rates just as they are. If the "rich are getting richer", they will have higher incomes, and thus pay higher taxes. Conversely, if the poor are getting poorer, they will have lower incomes, and fall into the tax bracket where they pay nothing in income taxes.

Thanks for helping to validate the conservative philosophy!

Sorry to inject facts, but the deficit THIS year is about $1,000 billion. ($1 Trillion)

$800 Billion over 10 years works out around $80 billion per year - about 8% of the deficit. Call it small or tiny, it won't fix the problem. It's not even a very good start.

So the Conservative philosophy is that America works best the wider we can grow income disparity?

I agree that letting the tax cuts expire only for the wealthy is only a proverbial drop in the bucket - however, so is cutting funding to NPR and yet we hear that "Every Penny Counts" - does "Every Penny Counts" only matter when it comes to cutting spending but not raising revenue?

IMHO - if we really care about the debt it will take BOTH increasing revenue to the government and cutting spending - and the cuts in spending will have to be shared across the board - because once we start making wholesale exemptions to large spending areas it then becomes impossible to cut the rest enough unless you have literally a one sided decision where the other side won't be able to do anything to block it (which isn't how our system is setup).

I thought I illustrated this with my points but I will spell it out. Raising taxes does not raise revenue.

Economic growth is the only proven way to raise revenue. We need to cut spending, obviously. But we also need an administration that will get out of the way and allow private industry to grow the economy. Government cannot grow an economy. Only the citizenry can do that.

Actually Donald, lets try and inject some reality. Add that $80 billion to the additional savings from winding down the wars would give us a substantial head way into bring our yearly current account deficit. And you call that immaterial ?

When you try to cut costs, do you look for that one line item in your budget or try to cut from multiple line items. Just wondering ?

If you eliminated the ENTIRE defense department - wars, research, maintenance, everything - that would be about $700 billion (except VA, another $90 Bil). That $700 is a little over half the deficit in 2011.

8% might be a start, but that's about all. Say the "wars" cost $200 bil/year - a generous figure - that's still only around 20% of the deficit.

So presuming that buffet + shutting down the wars tomorrow gets you 28% of the way, what do you do about the other 72%

Umm Donald, the cost of the wars have been 3.7 trillion dollars. And that would be in addition to the defense department budget.

The wars have been in addition to the Defense Dept Budget. So if you add about $400 billion in war + $ 80 billion, without touching the Defense department we got $480 billion. That is around 33 % of the deficit. If you think immediately identifying a third of the deficit that could be saved is an exercise in futility, then show me your plan. And to your plan, add the trillions in additional spending the Republicans want.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629

It's classic base-level thinking. When you need to raise revenue, the only thing that comes to mind for the Left is "Raise taxes". The proof of the fact that it is base-level thinking is that when they are challenged on this, they typically will use an analogy like, "So if I want my paycheck to increase my employer should cut my hourly wage?" They actually think that they can compare an economy as complex as that of the US to a paycheck; that the math is that simple and there are no other factors involved.

I'm predicting Romney by at least 100 electoral votes. And Romney takes MN. Yes, I'm willing to put that in writing and stand by it until the end.

Ken, you may not know this, but when you raise property taxes, the main people who get smacked by that are business owners. Homestead property owners have what used to be called a Market Value Homestead Tax Credit. This benefited them immensely, while not benefiting businesses at all.

I'm not a fan of Pawlenty at all, mainly because he cut his own budget by shifting the money and forcing local governments and school districts to cut theirs. A leader does not do that. A leader makes the tough decisions. He doesn't pretend to make tough decisions by forcing everyone else to actually make tough decisions.

I am a Republican, but I will never defend Pawlenty.

You are wrong about the election and not only will Romney win, but the GOP will pick up seats in the Senate, possibly gaining control of it, while keeping their control of the House.

Nick, do you honestly believe that it is a good thing to have the same party in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House?

That depends on a lot of things. Right now, yes. For 2 years, I think that would be a good thing. There is too much gridlock and it needs to end for awhile. After that, maybe things can get back to a cooperative balance.

Nick, the last time it happened we got ObamaCare, and now we have gridlock again.

I don't know what the 'perfect' answer is, but one party being in charge of all three is dangerous.

Yes, I'm familiar with the derivatives that Bill Clinton(a Democrat) deregulated. Point?

Go sit on it, Nick!

;-)

Chris--I've been meaning to tell you--I have read your posts in Patch on different "towns." They are always spot-on. Thank you, and keep writing.

Haha!

Perfect. Republican. Utopia.

Those roads, bridges, and the military are burdensome anyway.

Susan, when I write something like Chris did, even in humor, I get called out on taking things to extremes. Why does Chris get to do that? He knows no one is proposing eliminating all taxes.

I'm sorry, Nick. With the election tomorrow, I think I have lost all perspective. I think it all has to be funny now, or we will all lose it. There's nothing more that we can do except hope....see, another funny joke that both sides can appreciate.

Seriously, I can't take it seriously any more. I'm nervous, yet at the same time I love that people are coming together in a positive way...to vote for what they feel is the betterment of the country. For me, the debate is over and the party should begin...even if it's a going away party or a damn, I gave it my best shot party. That's where I will be for the next 36 hours.

Same reason I left out MSNBC.

Fox called it yesterday - Romney by a landslide.

We can include them BOTH, if you want, but NBC and MSNBC will probably (although not certain) call at the same time.

Chris, and Nick called the same thing today....it's over.

My "call it for Obama" time is tomorrow night at 11:13 PM.

Orono, if you're there, I'll take Obama for $10.

You know, I watch Morning Joe almost every morning, and I still don't understand who needs which states, if this one wins this state but not that state, and on and on they go...

I will watch for the magic 270, keeping an eye on those states you pointed out. Until I see 270, I think it would be premature to be happy or disappointed.

Orono, I am all over that action.

I will do the same with $20...and that's a great idea, Chris.

I'll match Susan's $20 for Romney...but not just that. Romney also takes MN, the marriage amendment passes, and Voter ID passes.

Wait a minute, am I up to $40 if Orono is in? That will be my max.

No way on the two amendments, although I will give my "guesses"...marriage amendment will fail, and voter ID will pass.

Nick - You just as well go get the checkbook right now.

Ok, I must point out that I made my "guesses" before I saw the latest Red/Blue articles on Patch.

Im in for $50.

Here is the map I am using.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

I wish I could say I was super confident. I watched Karl Rove tonight explain how the polls are all wrong. I didnt believe him until he started pointing out that Ohio and PA were using a higher percentage of democrats than even voted in 2008. Then he pointed out that polls in Wisconsin had Walker losing or tied and he won by 7 points. I then get all excited. BUt then two democrats came on and pointed out that all polls show Obama leading and that all the polls cant be wrong.... So, I am stuck not feeling very confident. Its true, all the polls cant be wrong. Then I also add in that I personally donated and that usually means the kiss of death.

George Will predicted that Minnesota will go to Romney. Does he know anything?

Considering that Minnesota elected a wrestler and a clown to office, It is very likely that we will be the very first state to not pass an amendment on marriage.

The voter ID measure will pass with flying colors - if for no other reason than to shove it down Arne Carlson's throat. Did Mark Dayton have a stroke? Everytime he speaks it sounds like he has a huge turd in him mouth.

Orono, George Will is one of the Conservative journalists that I listen to and respect. After all, he called Trump a bloviating ignoramous.

I can't vote in MN but I sure hope that both of your amendments fail. As far as voter ID goes, all the time, energy and money that has been spent is a waste. It should have gone to ensuring that the votes are tallied correctly and there is a way to honestly verify them. The marriage amendment is another waste of time, energy and money. It was put on the ballot by the right to energize their voters. I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to tell someone who they can or cannot marry. If you are not for gay marriage, just marry someone of the opposite sex. It's much ado about nothing. Except for the millions of people in the country who are denied the rights that heterosexuals enjoy.