Next POTUS after NOV 2012 election?

[crazyhorse1]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

Romney is a plutocrat, pure and simple. He believes in government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. A vote for the Republican party is a vote against equality and democracy, for reasons I'm sure are clear and numerous. I have no choice but to vote for Obama, like him or not. However, your idea that he is a communist or socialist is semi-insane. He's slightly right of center and has far too many Wall Street contacts, as well as a willingness to compromise with tickle-down criminals and nut cases (Tea Party) who advocate austerity nonsense in spite of all evidence that "austerity" creates depressed markets and, consequently, unemployment and recession. Try reading Keynes.

Obama is a Muslim masquerading to be a Christian....imo

Nothing wrong with Muslims or whatever religion or faith. JUST be real and don't front, don't pretend to be something/someone you are not.

We're on to this guy........Barry Soetoro aka Obama. I cannot trust a PHONEY in the white house.

You have no proof whatsoever that Obama is a Muslim or that he is only pretending to be a Christian. You're not "on to" anything and wouldn't know a "phony" if it were named Mitt Romney. To make an assertion that Obama is a Muslim without knowing it is true is not just an assertion, it is a lie. Good Christians and Jews don't lie or bear false witness. You do.

[tribeofjudah]

All his platforms and policies are phoney. He is a phoney, socially engineered by the Illuminati to sit on the THRONE of the USA and to bring to fruition the work of the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet.

This country has become the lamb that speaks as a dragon.

Revelation 13:11
Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.

Truth is truth.....and it cuts to the bone and the marrow.
Satan the adversary is the father of lies. The Adversary prefers that people don't believe he exists and that "sin" does not exist....it's fine by him.

[KazooSkinsFan]

He says unpatriotic and irresponsible, not unpatriotic and unAmerican.
Really, it's totally American.

Crazyhorse used "or" dude

CounterTrey used "and" dude

And you posted this ... after ... I'd backed that one up too even though it apparently wasn't mine. You're getting so badly skunked I'm thinking they should start considering ending the game on the mercy rule.

I like how you always say you're a free agent, you swing both ways, but you always in this particular case take the left side. Then you say you're voting for Ron Paul, who I've never seen you agree with on anything.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You have no proof whatsoever that Obama is a Muslim or that he is only pretending to be a Christian. You're not "on to" anything and wouldn't know a "phony" if it were named Mitt Romney. To make an assertion that Obama is a Muslim without knowing it is true is not just an assertion, it is a lie. Good Christians and Jews don't lie or bear false witness. You do.

He grew up in a household with a Marxist father and a Marxist sympathizer mother, had Marxist friends, a Marxist mentor and he supports the planks of the communist manifesto, but he isn't a communist, that's silly, he's "right" of center. His father was a Muslim, he was raised to hate America by both parents, but he's not one and he loves America. Your claims are baseless, then you challenge someone else?

I don't think personally he's Christian or Muslim though. I think he's too narcissist to believe any God is above him.

So crazyhorse, Obama says it's unpatriotic and unamerican to run 4 trillion debt in 7 1/2 years, and Obama's over that in 3 1/2. Was Obama right? Is Obama unpatriotic? Or was obama full of it when he said that about Bush?

[Deadskins]

He says unpatriotic and irresponsible, not unpatriotic and unAmerican.
Really, it's totally American.

Crazyhorse used "or" dude

CounterTrey used "and" dude

And you posted this ... after ... I'd backed that one up too even though it apparently wasn't mine. You're getting so badly skunked I'm thinking they should start considering ending the game on the mercy rule.

I like how you always say you're a free agent, you swing both ways, but you always in this particular case take the left side. Then you say you're voting for Ron Paul, who I've never seen you agree with on anything.

First of all, my comments above were totally in jest, hence the emoticons. I was commenting on the back and forth, not on Obama's words.
Second, you have no idea what I agree with, because you have your own preconceived notions of what I believe. I like to call you on your BS at times, but that doesn't mean I necessarily take the opposing view. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, why wouldn't I vote for him in the general?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Second, you have no idea what I agree with, because you have your own preconceived notions of what I believe. I like to call you on your BS at times, but that doesn't mean I necessarily take the opposing view.

I pointed out you always take the left side. Whether you're joking, whether you're not joking, whether you're talking with me, whether you're talking to the plethora of liberals on the site. If you only discussed with me, you could argue this. It would be a stretch, but you could try. But unlike your implication here, I'm not the only one you discuss politics with and still every argument and every joke is left. Just the facts.

[Deadskins]

Second, you have no idea what I agree with, because you have your own preconceived notions of what I believe. I like to call you on your BS at times, but that doesn't mean I necessarily take the opposing view.

I pointed out you always take the left side. Whether you're joking, whether you're not joking, whether you're talking with me, whether you're talking to the plethora of liberals on the site. If you only discussed with me, you could argue this. It would be a stretch, but you could try. But unlike your implication here, I'm not the only one you discuss politics with and still every argument and every joke is left. Just the facts.

If you say so. I've never made any bones that I consider myself a liberal, in the truest sense of the word. That doesn't mean I'm a Democrat, or a communist, or even a socialist. I believe in fiscal responsibility, so in that area you might consider me a conservative. You live in a fantasy world where if you you just leave the moneyed powers alone they will just magically stop trying to subjugate the other 99% of the world. You're fooling yourself if you can't see that Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin. Both are beholden to the the same moneyed interests that put them in power. Democrats do what they can to advance government power, and Republicans do the same in their own way. As long as you believe that I'm your enemy, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

[crazyhorse1]

You have no proof whatsoever that Obama is a Muslim or that he is only pretending to be a Christian. You're not "on to" anything and wouldn't know a "phony" if it were named Mitt Romney. To make an assertion that Obama is a Muslim without knowing it is true is not just an assertion, it is a lie. Good Christians and Jews don't lie or bear false witness. You do.

He grew up in a household with a Marxist father and a Marxist sympathizer mother, had Marxist friends, a Marxist mentor and he supports the planks of the communist manifesto, but he isn't a communist, that's silly, he's "right" of center. His father was a Muslim, he was raised to hate America by both parents, but he's not one and he loves America. Your claims are baseless, then you challenge someone else?

I don't think personally he's Christian or Muslim though. I think he's too narcissist to believe any God is above him.

So crazyhorse, Obama says it's unpatriotic and unamerican to run 4 trillion debt in 7 1/2 years, and Obama's over that in 3 1/2. Was Obama right? Is Obama unpatriotic? Or was obama full of it when he said that about Bush?

Omaha's initiatives cost a little over one and one/half trillion and created over four million jobs. The rest of the monies you blame Obama for are carryover costs from the past administration-- the Bush tax cuts being an example.

By the way, Bush ran the country into over 10 trillion in debt, not four trillion.

You apparently don't know what a socialist is. If you did, you would know that we've been a socialist country since the great depression. The only question about Obamacare is: does it work? Here's other socialist programs you should think about: special tax cuts to the rich, subsidies for oil companies, government bailouts of banks, special treatment for corporations, including "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

Obama's flaws: domestic spying on an epic scale, abuse of drones, indefinite detention, war- like behavior and overt civil rights violations. If you want to find flaws, look for things that are real.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

[crazyhorse1]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

Romney is a plutocrat, pure and simple. He believes in government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. A vote for the Republican party is a vote against equality and democracy, for reasons I'm sure are clear and numerous. I have no choice but to vote for Obama, like him or not. However, your idea that he is a communist or socialist is semi-insane. He's slightly right of center and has far too many Wall Street contacts, as well as a willingness to compromise with tickle-down criminals and nut cases (Tea Party) who advocate austerity nonsense in spite of all evidence that "austerity" creates depressed markets and, consequently, unemployment and recession. Try reading Keynes.

When Obama hunts he only kills mother deer so the fawns will starve to death. When he sees a Salvation Army Santa, he takes out a $100 bill to see them all excited, then sets it on fire and drops it in their can so that and the money they collected burn. Obama slits the throats of homeless, but not too deep so they bleed out and die slowly. And he's trying to tip the balance of power by arranging the murder of Republican school children. He spreads them out so no one connects them.

Romney's so nice to his wife, she wishes he would get made at her once just so she knows he's a real person. He goes through the phonebook and sends everyone in poor zip codes $100 bills. He also tracks the firemen's scanner and runs into burning buildings to save people when he gets there before the firemen. He can just whisper to angry dogs and they not only stop growling but they never bite again. Mother Theresa once told him that he is her idol, even if she knows she can never be him.

Seriously, you want a deranged murder to be President over a living saint?

Is this a joke. I hope, for your sake, it is.

[tribeofjudah]

What the HECK are carryover costs???

Is that like saying my dad is responsible for me if I'm broke, and jobless, and homeless??? That is laughable.

you really are a CRAZY-HORSE...!!!

LOL....carry over cost. That Should be Obama's new PLATFORM.

[DarthMonk]

When GWB added 4 trillion to the Deficit, Obama declared that he was unpatriotic, unAmerican as a result... Obama is currently reigning over a 16 Trillion deficit. Can he explain why he is not unpatriotic and unAmerican?

You'd have to ask Obama but here is what I'd tell him to point out.

First of all your claim above is flat out wrong. You've confused DEFICIT with DEBT.

Deficit: The amount by which the government's total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year.

Debt: Pretty much the sum of all surpluses and deficits.

Bush inherited a DEFICIT that did not exist. He inherited a budget operating at a SURPLUS.

Bush DID inherit a DEBT that had reached about 5.7 trillion. What Bush did was start adding to the DEBT by taking the BUDGET SURPLUS Clinton gave him and immediately turning it into a BUDGET DEFICIT. He did this in several ways but primarily by cutting taxes, giving a tax rebate (I got a $600 check), expanding Medicare (or was it Medicaid?), and starting two wars - all of which he failed to pay for. Over 8 years Bush took the BUDGET from SURPLUS to DEFICIT thereby adding the overall DEBT.

Bush took the debt from about 5.7 trillion to about 11 trillion. He did this by taking Clinton's BUDGET SURPLUS of about $200 billion and turning it into ANNUAL DEFICITS (in billions) of $157, $357, $413, $318, $248, $161, $459, and $1,413. The wars were "off budget" and there was a little interest too. Note the first trillion dollar deficit (handed off to Obama).

Bush governed from the left more than people realize in that he wielded government power quite liberally (and radically). He bought Fannie and Freddie, not Obama.

Anyway, Obama has run DEFICITS (in billions) of $1,294, $1,299, and $1,100. The current deficit will come in at around $900. This is a reversal in the direction of Bushes deficit explosion.

So actually, Obama could "explain why he is not unpatriotic and unAmerican" pretty easily but I'd say he probably wouldn't use the "unpatriotic" language if he had to do it all over again.

DarthMonk

[DarthMonk]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

[crazyhorse1]

What the HECK are carryover costs???

Is that like saying my dad is responsible for me if I'm broke, and jobless, and homeless??? That is laughable.

you really are a CRAZY-HORSE...!!!

LOL....carry over cost. That Should be Obama's new PLATFORM.

Bush didn't pay for his wars (Obama had to), nor did Bush pay for the tax cuts for the rich that he passed on to Obama, nor did Bush pay for increased costs in Medicare that he caused by protecting drug companies and passed on to Obama, nor did Obama cause the bailout of the Banks caused by Bush's failure to enforce regulation. When determining how much a President has spent, one must count only those costs he initiated. In short, those who accuse Obama of spending too much money, should not blame Obama for paying Bush's bills, which he had to, by law.

Your analogy makes no sense, unless you consider that your father has run up bills that you have to pay, by law . In that case. yes, it would be true that you are homeless because of your father.

Back to Obama. It is totally true that of the five to six trillion he is usually accused of having spent, only a trillion and a half has been on his own projects. The rest has been spent on "carry over" costs from Bush's administration. This is one of the big reasons that Obama's supporters don't blame him for running up debt. Another big reason is that he tried to get Republicans in congress to make four trillion in cuts, but they refused. The reason for their refusal was that they didn't want Obama to look good. Instead of helping the country, they chose to create a phony campaign issue and constantly hammered away at Obama for spending too much and not caring about the deficit, which was a cheap lie that has not worked.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Omaha's initiatives cost a little over one and one/half trillion and created over four million jobs. The rest of the monies you blame Obama for are carryover costs from the past administration-- the Bush tax cuts being an example.

By the way, Bush ran the country into over 10 trillion in debt, not four trillion.

Wow, liberal math. That's some funky stuff. So basically, you take the deficit. If the person you're analyzing has an R after their name, you multiply it by 4 and if there's a D you divide it by 10.

Here's another bit of liberal math. Clinton ran surpluses. And the National debt went up every year he was President...

I'm good with your Bush calculation. There is no way he should be not held accountable for his predecessors spending plan, it's his watch, cut it. And unfunded liabilities are of course fair to count. But if you calculated Obama the same way instead of holding him accountable for nothing, his number would be like 30 trillion when you add ObamaCare Socialized Medicine on top. And that would be if you're only counting the next decade.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

[KazooSkinsFan]

What the HECK are carryover costs???

Is that like saying my dad is responsible for me if I'm broke, and jobless, and homeless??? That is laughable.

you really are a CRAZY-HORSE...!!!

LOL....carry over cost. That Should be Obama's new PLATFORM.

Bush didn't pay for his wars (Obama had to), nor did Bush pay for the tax cuts for the rich that he passed on to Obama, nor did Bush pay for increased costs in Medicare that he caused by protecting drug companies and passed on to Obama, nor did Obama cause the bailout of the Banks caused by Bush's failure to enforce regulation. When determining how much a President has spent, one must count only those costs he initiated. In short, those who accuse Obama of spending too much money, should not blame Obama for paying Bush's bills, which he had to, by law.

Your analogy makes no sense, unless you consider that your father has run up bills that you have to pay, by law . In that case. yes, it would be true that you are homeless because of your father.

Back to Obama. It is totally true that of the five to six trillion he is usually accused of having spent, only a trillion and a half has been on his own projects. The rest has been spent on "carry over" costs from Bush's administration. This is one of the big reasons that Obama's supporters don't blame him for running up debt. Another big reason is that he tried to get Republicans in congress to make four trillion in cuts, but they refused. The reason for their refusal was that they didn't want Obama to look good. Instead of helping the country, they chose to create a phony campaign issue and constantly hammered away at Obama for spending too much and not caring about the deficit, which was a cheap lie that has not worked.

In other words ... baa ...

And yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. "Tax cuts" which are taking less money from people have to be "paid for." They are government spending.

And economically, tax cuts have grown revenue whether it's a D (JFK) or an R (Reagan). You don't like them because they are a weapon in your class warfare arsenal, at least be honest.

[crazyhorse1]

What the HECK are carryover costs???

Is that like saying my dad is responsible for me if I'm broke, and jobless, and homeless??? That is laughable.

you really are a CRAZY-HORSE...!!!

LOL....carry over cost. That Should be Obama's new PLATFORM.

Bush didn't pay for his wars (Obama had to), nor did Bush pay for the tax cuts for the rich that he passed on to Obama, nor did Bush pay for increased costs in Medicare that he caused by protecting drug companies and passed on to Obama, nor did Obama cause the bailout of the Banks caused by Bush's failure to enforce regulation. When determining how much a President has spent, one must count only those costs he initiated. In short, those who accuse Obama of spending too much money, should not blame Obama for paying Bush's bills, which he had to, by law.

Your analogy makes no sense, unless you consider that your father has run up bills that you have to pay, by law . In that case. yes, it would be true that you are homeless because of your father.

Back to Obama. It is totally true that of the five to six trillion he is usually accused of having spent, only a trillion and a half has been on his own projects. The rest has been spent on "carry over" costs from Bush's administration. This is one of the big reasons that Obama's supporters don't blame him for running up debt. Another big reason is that he tried to get Republicans in congress to make four trillion in cuts, but they refused. The reason for their refusal was that they didn't want Obama to look good. Instead of helping the country, they chose to create a phony campaign issue and constantly hammered away at Obama for spending too much and not caring about the deficit, which was a cheap lie that has not worked.

In other words ... baa ...

And yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. "Tax cuts" which are taking less money from people have to be "paid for." They are government spending.

And economically, tax cuts have grown revenue whether it's a D (JFK) or an R (Reagan). You don't like them because they are a weapon in your class warfare arsenal, at least be honest.

Tax cuts are, in fact, government spending, or investing, if you wish. They were given to the rich as a stimulus to produce new business and hence new jobs. Trouble is, the cuts have been in place for over a decade without producing anything but a deepening deficit. No responsible economist believes in trickle down anymore. The cuts have not grown revenue or produced jobs (obviously). If they had, no one would be against them. Do you think people are stupid?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Tax cuts are, in fact, government spending, or investing, if you wish. They were given to the rich as a stimulus to produce new business and hence new jobs.

Yes, I agree, comrade. All money is the people's money. I already said that, comrade. When government doesn't take people's money from them, that is government spending. You won't take yes for an answer, will you comrade?

Trouble is, the cuts have been in place for over a decade without producing anything but a deepening deficit. No responsible economist believes in trickle down anymore. The cuts have not grown revenue or produced jobs (obviously). If they had, no one would be against them. Do you think people are stupid?

So my choices are that I concede you and liberal LAWYERS know more then the entire field of ECONOMICS, which is my field as I'm a business and finance guy, or I think you're stupid. Those polar extremes are my only choice, got it. What I actually think:

1) In the last decade we were buried in government spending. The tax cuts were positive, as all economics will tell you, but it wasn't enough to overcome the massive spending and suffocating regulation that inherently comes with it. You cannot pick one single factor and ignore everything else, sorry.

2) The positive effect of the tax cuts were also partially undone by the complexity W, who is no fiscal conservative, brought with them. Tax cuts and simplification would have been far more effective. The reason is tax complexity sends investors off to minimize taxes which means the complexity leads to economically inefficient decisions.

3) Your view that only tax cuts affect deficits and spending and regulation are irrelevant as well as your view that the entire field of economics is wrong is ... incredibly self serving to your big government agenda, isn't it crazyhorse?

[DarthMonk]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

I refuted you long ago but you won't accept it - hence, more Marxist crap.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

I refuted you long ago but you won't accept it - hence, more Marxist crap.

What you said was Democrats aren't Marxist because you didn't like it the way the planks were phrased. You didn't come up with any substantiative disagreement with the planks.

What I don't understand is why when the planks advocate what you want, you can't just say yes, you are a Marxist. Why does the word bother you if it's accurate? crazyhorse is here saying that all money is the governments, any money they allow people to keep is spending and you don't bat an eye. But Marxist, I can't say that, you don't like the word. Why? It's just a word. If it's accurate, why does it bother you?

[crazyhorse1]

I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

I refuted you long ago but you won't accept it - hence, more Marxist crap.

What you said was Democrats aren't Marxist because you didn't like it the way the planks were phrased. You didn't come up with any substantiative disagreement with the planks.

What I don't understand is why when the planks advocate what you want, you can't just say yes, you are a Marxist. Why does the word bother you if it's accurate? crazyhorse is here saying that all money is the governments, any money they allow people to keep is spending and you don't bat an eye. But Marxist, I can't say that, you don't like the word. Why? It's just a word. If it's accurate, why does it bother you?

You use the word irresponsibly. Words have precise meanings, but you call anyone to the left of you a "Marxist." It's sort of a war against language. It's offensive to anyone who cares about language.

By the way, I am writing to you on the night Romney destroyed Obama in debate by lying his way to the left of Obama on every issue, even Medicare.
I'm a bit sick of the world's flim-flam at the moment: that includes your dishonestly in regard to labeling. You know better.

Special tax breaks for special people is government spending, pure and simple, regardless of your spin. l

[KazooSkinsFan]

I'm a bit sick of the world's flim-flam at the moment: that includes your dishonestly in regard to labeling. You know better.

You don't like the label of "Marxist," but you've never once even remotely accurately been able to state my basic views, so how would you know? I'm either a Republican or an anarchist. Those are my only choices. You can't even say the words that I'm for limited government, not no government.

[tribeofjudah]

Last night, Obama proved that he NEEDS a teleprompter. He was on the defensive, sounding like a broken record. His message is old and tired and it's time for a change.

Romney looked prepared for battle. November will be interesting.

[KazooSkinsFan]

By the way, I am writing to you on the night Romney destroyed Obama in debate by lying his way to the left of Obama on every issue, even Medicare.

Of course he lied. The word "liberal" simply means truth. Liberals are just honest, fair people who just look at situations and do what's logical. You can't defeat that except with lies. So all of us who aren't liberals do it. Liberals are obviously right, we know what we're telling are lies. We have to. But we're racist, sexist homophobes who want the country to be run by corporations and we want the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Truth doesn't get us there, truth is counter to that. So we lie to accomplish it.

Special tax breaks for special people is government spending, pure and simple, regardless of your spin. l

Special people? The tax breaks were by ... income. And still the more you make, the higher rate you pay. 1% of the country pay 20% of all taxes and 5% pay 60% of all taxes. But to reduce how much higher a rate they pay is "government spending." That can only be if you're a Marxist. Dude you're a Marxist. Not an insult, just an observation. You obviously don't read the Communist Manifesto and have any issue with the objectives or the plan. You demonstrate that with everything you say on the subject, both you and mini-you.