I like bashing Mitt. He does not have confidence in the american finanancial community. If he did his money would not be in off shore accounts. How can we trust someone like that?

I also like bashing Obama. Should I point out his swift rise in ILLINOIS politics, a state that has sent an awful lot of govenors to jail. Who does he owe favors too?
However I believe he is the lesser of two evils.

Larry, your comment about Mitt's money being in off shore accounts and not trusting him is misguided. He's had his investments run by a blind trust for about 10 years. He has no control over where or what this blind trust does with his money. Obama also has a blind trust and both of their trusts have foreign investments.

Obama is like a magician - he wants you to watch his left hand, which is where he tries to put doubt in your mind about a very qualified Romney - a proven and qualified Governor that has brought democrats and republicans together - while his right hand has nothing in it - no plans, hasn't had a budget in 4 years - which is why he is spending like crazy. And, he is not a leader - he is very devisive and points fingers instead of getting anything done that will help keep us safe for the future. Think carefully before you vote for Obama - he is scary too me - the scariest President literally I have every seen.

Thanks Jim, I'm sure you will have a busy night posting your nonsense here and on websites throughout the land. Be sure to delete your cookies so you can vote multiple times. Hopefully you get paid a stipend by some superpac for your efforts so you can pay your mom rent on the basement apt.

I'm inclined to (gasp) agree with "mike k"... I would give a very slight edge to Obama ONLY BECAUSE he obviously has boned up on his debating skills in the last two weeks. You can call me a fanboy or whatever you wish, but I would have given the same consideration to Mitt Romney had he had such a tremendous improvement (had the roles been reversed).

Mind you, the above commentary is only with regard to debate skills. I will freely admit I made up my mind a long time ago about who I think will best serve the needs of this country. If you look through my commenting history, it's not all that hard to figure out.

glad to see my favorite stalker did not disappoint. How about that basketball game I proposed fat boy? Can you get off your sofa long enough to take on an old 63 year old man?

Caffeinated,

But you left out the good things CNN said about Romney.

Who would better handle economy: Romney 58%, Obama 40%
Who would better handle the deficit: Romney 59%, Obama 36%
Did Obama offer clear plan: Yes 38%, No 61%
Stronger leader: Romney 49%, Obama 46%
Answered questions: Romney 45%, Obama 43%
Who would better handle health care: Romney 49%, Obama 46%

Rich, I posted those numbers as soon as they were announced. It should also be pointed out that the sampling pool was Republican by 8 points.

mike, who you talking to? Pretty sure my BMI is lower than yours, and no I still don't want to meet you for one-on-one you creepy old dude. Find a bathhouse somewhere...

Darn, I thought I was your favorite stalker, "mike k".

;-)

My, but that "mike k" person has strong writing skills...

After Obama's 1st performance, it wouldn't be hard to do 'better than expected'. Romney didn't need to do 'better than expected'. Romney was right on about Obama's generic reference in the Rose Garden on 9/12... moderator was wrong and should have kept her mouth shut. Romney should have continued questioning Obama about his persistent blame (even to the U.N.and all the talk shows) on the video. Obama ditched the question totally about who was responsible for the increased security in Libya being denied after it had been requested.....But then, Obama has issues with the American people knowing the truth and I bet he uses Executive Privilege again before all is said and done. Obama's only 'win' power is in the Media being willing to cover for him....Crowley being a prime example.

Democrat here to say Obama clearly lost the first debate. He also clearly won the second. I agree that nothing will likely change a vote at this point.

Agreed.

Succinctly put, Mr. Frain.

The one thing that both parties can agree on. Well stated Jim.

You speak the truth, Good Guy Jim.

Are you paid to spam this drivel on every Patch site across the country? Pathetic.

"Alf"-onzo, is that all you got? Crowley was the MODERATOR, not the FACT-CHECKER. Go ahead and look up how debates are supposed to work. We'll wait...

If anything, she is guilty of not sticking to just moderating. I understand why she did it, Romney was looking to her like a deer in the headlights, as if to say "What do I do now?". If I recall correctly, and even Obama had to say "Proceed..." to the ex-governor... truly one of the night's more puzzling moments.

As for your comical assertion "It took the administration five days to own up"... I will not respond to such fact-free blatantly partisan political baiting, out of respect for the brave Americans who lost their lives during the attacks.

The moderator bailed Romney out. Romney was making a big arse of himself and by her speaking up and then tossing him a bone on the video, she let the deer get out of the headlights.

I'm really disappointed in Romney. Does he blame Bush admin for intelligence and security lapses prior to 9-11. Does he blame Bush for bad things that occurred in Iraq, or Afghanistan? Of course we need to learn from mistakes, but first we need to find out what happened.

Mittens regurgitating something he read on a drudge report link is not useful in any way- not even as a cheap campaign ploy - it fires up the far right who live for this crap, but anyone else thinks he's nuts.

Earl Higgins, it took the Administration a lot longer than 5 days and Obama still tries to hide behind the video.... Obama trying to use 'I meet those coffins' of truly brave Americans who lost their lives to cloak himself in dramatic 'offense' is disgusting and pathetic.

The moderator of this debate did a horrible job. She tried to help one candidate at the expense of the other. It was clear and although I don't think she meant to do it, I don't think her liberal inclinations could stop her. She just couldn't help herself. She caught herself after she blurted it out and tried to smooth it over, but it was too late. She left Obama smirking on that stool and Michelle clapping (which was against the rules of the debate). Later, she had to admit she was wrong.

Mary, please read before posting. Posting falsehoods doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look gullible. I'll even provide you a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Where's Massapequa?

Phyllis, I agree. The President is in the position of having to defend what he HAS done where his challenger can say what he WOULD HAVE done. Of course Romney can SAY he would have done things differently, talk is cheap when you aren't in charge of the most powerful country in the world. Massachusetts is a small state and there are plenty citizens of that state who don't agree with Romney's sunny view of his "accomplishments". Last poll I saw had Obama with a healthy lead in that state. And I shudder when I think of his saber rattling - calling out China and Iran - making political issue out of Libya? The world might be more complicated than Massachusetts.

RegalT62, you're right talk can be cheap. It's a shame Obama is in the position of having to defend what he has done. I would much rather have a President who could boast of his accomplishments rather than being in the position of defending his failures. Romney took a state with a history of deficits and balanced their budget for 4 years. Those are facts. Anyone should recognize that the economy is our most important issue and Obama has failed us. Jobs are the most important thing to solving many economic and social issues. Obama's programs have clearly failed to provide any solution to job creation and unemployment. Why should we believe another 4 years of his failed policies will solve anything.

So, Mr. Ellis - Mr. Romney had to repair the preceding 12 years of Republican Administrations in his state?

John, I think you have to recognize the financial uberstorm we have been in for the past five years - as well as the expensive - and ill-conceived two wars. I'm pleased by Obama's accomplishments - pulling us back from that financial cliff, the ACA, repeal of DADT, Dream Act, and continued support for women's reproductive rights.. I don't agree with the continued trampling of individual rights, the continuation of the explosion of contract military, use of drones, and I sure don't think any politician (especially a politician) should be able to order the murder of an American citizen anywhere in the world without due process. I'm saying that it is waaaaay easier to call things in hindsight - "I would have..." etc. That kind of talk is cheap.. And I don't think the United States and the small state of Massachusetts are comparable. I do appreciate your points and what are clear issues for you!.

Well Mr. Maher, I was not referring to any of the previous Massachusetts Governors whether they were Democrats or Republican makes no difference to the fact of what he did accomplish. None of those former Governors are running for President. I'm also not blaming every previous deficit we experienced at the Federal level on President Obama. Over the years their have been good and bad Presidents from both sides of the isle. We're taking about these two men and which one has demonstrated the ability to lead now. President Obama never had any experience at running anything prior to his election and that fact is clearly reflected in his performance.

RegalT62, I'm not defending prior administrations financial prowess. Clearly the wars have been a financial and emotional burden, but Obama has not improved our situation. To the contrary our economy has worsened and hurt many of the people he hoped to help. He pushed us closer to that financial cliff. The ACA, certain aspects may be beneficial, as a whole it is ill-conceived, poorly timed and filled with items which are not health care related. Repeal it and address health issues with multiple pieces of smaller, more concise legislation. DADT is not a major accomplishment but it’s okay. Dream Act has some good points but does not address immigration, which Obama promised to do. Women's reproductive rights has been settled by the courts and attempts to change it will be futile. People on both sides make this an insane single issue. It should not be part any candidate’s agenda who seriously addresses our nation’s needs. Yes, hindsight is easy. It's just sad that we're in a position where people are using it to make excuses. If Obama had Romney’s experience when he took office, I've no doubt he would have performed better. Comparing their handling financial situations, Obama has only failures.

John, I don't think there were any other economic choices Obama could have made. We were on the precipice. He had to bail out Detroit, at that time there was no one else anywhere who wanted or could have taken on the whole industry for restructuring, which is what Mitt now says he would have done. Making financial decisions in business - even when working at destroying companies as he did at Bain - is very different from working with two full branches of the legislature, lobbyists and vocal constituents. Making money or satisfying a group of stockholders is not the goal of the President. This is the distinction between governing and business.

RegalT62, in addition to the Detroit bailout, Obama’s $800 Billion stimulus package was a failure. His administration led GM to build the Volt. Which has been a complete failure, meanwhile GM is in the midst of opening car plants and moving part of their design team to China. The additional stimulus has produced little in the way jobs. Under his watch the Fed is continuing to print money. Clearly you do not know the facts of Bain Capital and Romney’s work there. He did not destroy companies, Bain, generally took companies that were in trouble and attempted to turn them around. Balancing a budget and managing processes and people uses the same basic principles, whether in government or the private sector. You must satisfy more than stockholders you must also deal with consumers, regulators, vendors, and labor.

John, we have very different definitions of the word "failure". The Stimulus was necessary and successful. In fact, it didn't go far enough. I'm a believer in Mr. Krugman's economic ideas - austerity is not the way to go in a crisis. One complaint I do have is that the President bowed to political pressure and didn't keep Elizabeth Warren as the watchdog of Wall Street - a position she would have excelled at (and could have brought back Glass-Steagall). Bain Capital was about one thing and one thing only - making money. Ask all those in the companies how they felt about Bain. And I believe that Governing is much more difficult than chasing the dollar - or at least the people I believe in see it that way.

Sorry but by almost anyone’s standards, the stimulus was a dismal failure and did little more than generate more debt. Throwing money at the problems we have, will only worsen them, we must be smarter about how we spend our public funds. Supporting failed programs is not where we should be. I’ll admit it’s a real mess and it’s going to take some time to turn it around, but what Obama is touting will only make it worse.

You still have no concept about Bain Capital. Sure they are in business to make money. That’s’ the same reason everyone who has a job goes to work every day. Is that a problem? It’s a lot better than waiting for the Government to take care of you.

No, running a private enterprise has most if not all the problems of Government and some different ones. Most notably they cannot continue on by just printing money, they must act within their budgets and make a profit or they will cease to exist. Whether private or public, it still comes down to planning, managing people and assets, satisfying the consumers, running operations, and dealing with the unknown. Actually not all that different.

John, you can not look at the "before and after" rates for employment, GDP, stock prices, company profits, or any other financial, labor or economic metric and say, with a straight face, that the stimulus was a failure.

If you can, you are showing your partisan stripes and have lost what little credibility you may have had.

Although I believe the purpose of business is to make money, I still feel that companies and those who run them have a social contract with America. Companies, even Bain, doesn't exist inside of a vacuum - they make money utilizing publicly funded resources like police, fire protection and an educated workforce. The government, however, has a different role. It is not in the business of making a profit and it exists solely to serve the people. This probably sums up our completely different political views and what makes me a liberal. The whole deficit thing is really a red herring - it is an abstract which politicians use for talking points. I remember the 80's when there were the same fear mongering voices, then we had a decade of prosperity, revenue was collected and we had a surplus. That was wiped out by two ill conceived wars and the Bush tax cuts. So here we are - people are arguing about "the deficit" while more and more of our children are plunged into poverty, the sick can't afford their medication and our returning military are given substandard care. I think it is preferring to look at the forest than at the trees.

Frist of all the rates of employment have hardly altered during his term. They went up to about 8% and have pretty much stayed there. Our most recent GDP number ranked us as #149 out of 185 countries. Profit may be up for some but most, particularly small businesses, are suffering. Our labor market has seen many manufacturing jobs lost and these workers moving to lower paying jobs with less future.

It is not just me saying that the stimulus was a failure. I believe the facts are there. My partisanship is that I’m a citizen looking to do the best for my county. My bias is that I think our President has failed us and needs to be replaced. It’s not that he’s not acted alone, but he’s the leader and must go. I ‘can’t vote all the others out but I’ll working on changing those who I can.

>>>Frist of all the rates of employment have hardly altered during his term.

True. However, you fail to point out it's the lowest it's been in four years. In fact, 7.8 is the lowest since January 2009. Considering what's happened to the economy, I count that as progress.

>>Our most recent GDP number ranked us as #149 out of 185 countries.

Wrong. We are ranked #1 in GDP by the International Monetary Fund, #1 in GDP by the World Bank, #1 in GDP by CIA World Factbook, and #1 in GDP by the United Nations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29#List)

>> Profit may be up for some but most, particularly small businesses, are suffering.

True, corporate profits are at record levels. The rest of your statement is not a stated fact, but an opinion. As someone who generated a startup during this time, I can assure you the President had little to do with my success, and I'm realistic enough not to blame him for my failures.

>> Our labor market has seen many manufacturing jobs lost and these workers moving to lower paying jobs with less future.

A trend that started in the 80's and accelerated after 2001. The manufacturing base was eviscerated, and was so long before 2008. I share your concern... so are you for a living wage?

>>My partisanship is that I’m a citizen looking to do the best for my county.

As opposed to the people who don't agree with you? Really?

You're correct and I, too, like the A+ program. But it's important that Romney was presiding over a heavily Democrat state house and senate. The grants or the "binder of women" he referred to weren't initiated by him. He presided over legislation and issues that were strongly brought to him and/or passed by the legislature. No stats here, but Romney has alluded that the legislature could have been expected to override a veto. Unfortunately, he can't really claim those achievements. His one very notable, substantial achievement as Gov, was the health care legislation, yet he often backs away from that.

I also liked the questions. Those are the issues I hear people talking about. My only change would have been Obama's response on the last one - to correct people's
misperception of you. I wanted Obama to pull out a cross, a Bible and his Birth certificate and put it all to bed once and for all! LOL

Apparently rudeness in both parties is the new norm and what a shame that is! The A+ program is great and has helped lots of students further their education and I agree we can and should do better for our kids, cutting education programs probably isn't the way to do this. I liked this debate because of the questions like the one on tax credits helps keep things real and I loved that President Obama answered it. All in all a spirited debate it was.

Folks, please think clearly about your choice. Obama is like a magician - he wants you to watch his left hand, which is where he tries to put doubt in your mind about a very qualified Romney - a proven and qualified Governor that has brought democrats and republicans together - while his right hand has nothing in it - no plans, hasn't had a budget in 4 years - which is why he is spending like crazy. And, he is not a leader - he is very devisive and points fingers instead of getting anything done that will help keep us safe for the future. Think carefully before you vote for Obama - he is scary too me - the scariest President literally I have every seen.

"An Ran",
You have no right to tell us to "think clearly" when you pull out lazy and unthinking talking points like "Obama is like a magician " and "the scariest President literally I have every seen."

Yet more fear mongering Fox Snooze jibberish. There is nothing that exhibits "clear thinking" in your entire post.

...which means nothing. President Obama will still win re-election.

Louis, thanks. I think I will just stay home November 6, voting is so much trouble anyway.

Many pollsters list Missouri as "pink" - trending towards red, but hardly a certainty. Every vote counts.

The statistical reality supports this almost certain Romney win in Missouri. You can hope and pray all you want. Anyone who would make other conclusions at this point are either doped up or do not have a clue about politics or both. You may love Obama but he does not love you back. Most Obama supporters are schmucks - supporting him and getting nothing in return. A chosen few Obama supporters (the 1%) crowd are supporting him so they reap the awards of the political corruption if he is again elected.

the last time I checked, the President presides over the entire country, not just one state, and that the electoral vote, as flawed as it maybe, determines who will be President of the country.

Obama is going to win - get over it.

From an Obama supporting "schmuck"

"My vote will mean something so I pray that you are wrong Louis! This is my first time voting..." --Oh Re El

"The statistical reality supports this almost certain Romney win in Missouri. You can hope and pray all you want." --Louis Leffingwell

Some would say that taking a big steaming dump on someone's first voting experience makes you the schmuck, but whatever.

Glad to hear you are getting involved and voting - it's my personal feeling that if you don't vote you really shouldn't get to complain later if you don't like what's going on. Each vote does count so do your research and vote the way you feel is right for you.

Very possibly true. Romney has had very little foreign policy experience. With all due respect, a wealthy businessman bartering a deal is not quite the same, especailly the touchy foreign politics in so many areas of the world today. Obama has proved both tough where it mattered as well as a calming force when required. He does have the advantage in this venue.

Obama won't win....thank God!

Mary, the question was about the debate, NOT about the election. Why didn't your God tell you that?

Rockwood 25, what planet have you been on the past four years? Are you implying that Obama had foreign policy experience? Obama has not been a calming force, he's bowed and scraped before other world leaders acquiescing to their demands and giving inappropriate and undeserved apologies. He’s frequently waded in on issues when he should have stood back and let Hillary handle the situation. Judging his performance I’d say he still has no effective experience, just failures.

Do you seriously believe either man would want to be seen the way Obama was the first debate and the many "moments" that Romney did? This is hardly pro wrestling. They both want to win...badly. Neither likes to lose.

I liked - no, loved - the question about how ex-governor Romney would be different from GW Bush. Sadly, completely unanswered.

How is it that a group of random undecided voters came up with more than a few questions which were better than any the "real" press has been asking?

Perhaps it would've been viewed as trite by media types to ask some questions that were asked. However, from the public, it was better received. Many of the questions ARE things bantered about the water cooler, etc.

The President has woefully little control over gas prices...or they'd be lower already. Fact is it's a world market. Oil is bought and sold at the going rate and many more are buying and enough of the supply is an uncertainty due to unrest that it still affects the pricing on the rest of the world.
Our food is so much higher because not only was a huge portion of US producing areas in a drought, but there were weather issues all around the world reducing food supplies.

No one can control the price of either; if they tell you they can, they're lying or foolish.

Agreed. I think it's a mistake to not explain gas prices. But both candidates are unwilling to have that conversation with the American people.

I'd like to see a program on the scale of the Manhattan Project to come up with long-term energy policy and plans, make giants steps forward in technologies, and quickly develop renewable energy. That would help with the 12 million new jobs in 4 years.

Will it cost? Of course. If we would have devoted all the resources we've invested in fighting wars for the last few decades to energy, we'd be much better off now.

Rather than try to explain this, read for yourselves the STUPID claim Obama made during the debate and realize this is his own claim, not a partisan one. How the media missed this one can only be explained by....they wanted to!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/17/Obama-worst-gaffe-gas-prices

"the media missed this one"/"the media wasn't watching"

There was nothing to miss. Breitbart says:
"In other words, bringing down gas prices by drilling creates economic recession. That was Obama’s argument."

So Breitbart says the sequence of "Obama's argument" was, in order:
1. drilling
2. lower gas prices
3. recession

Obama actually said, as Breitbart quoted:
"when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."

That sequence is:
1. policies (plural! including, but not limited to, drilling)
2. recession
3. lower gas process

Breitbart narrowed "policies" to "drilling" and flipped 2. and 3.

I never understood why Republicans and Romney himself are so quick to make the claim that gas prices doubled during Obama's administration. As if that means squat. Six months before Obama's inauguration, gas prices were even higher than they are now. At that time GW Bush was defending his energy policies by saying, rightfully so, that the president doesn't control the price of gas. So if it was true then why isn't it also true for Obama?

So that we can all be better educated on this, I have provided a link to an eight year graph showing average US gas prices:
http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=us

My graph link seems not to work. Try this instead: http://bit.ly/HUb08Y

Earl, you're right, often the locations in gas prices have little to do with any actions of the President. However, the rise in our national debt and subsequent lowering of the dollar value does affect it. Your reference chart clearly shows spikes of gas prices over the years. It also reflects an overall growth in the average price during those years. This is largely due to the lowering of the value of the US dollar. It’s more prevalent during the Obama years because during those years the debt has grown more.

John, re: "This is largely due to the lowering of the value of the US dollar"

that is a curious claim given the very low rate of inflation isn't it?

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm

The world currency for oil is US dollars. As we create more and more national debt the value of the dollar in purchasing oil has fallen.

Not sure I buy that argument for the following two reasons:
1. Debt in Europe (a larger market than the US) has also grown
2. Increasing Global Demand has a much higher influence on price than the change (?) in the value of the dollar

Larry, you missed the point.

Euros are not used to buy oil, dollars are. Everyone uses US dollar to pay for oil on the world market. The fact that European debt has grown has little or no effect on the price of oil.

Yes, the growth in demand may have a bigger effect on oil prices, but the President has very little if any leverage on the demand factor. He does have a great deal to do with increasing, decreasing or stabilizing our national debt and as more debt accumulates it continues to weaken the dollar. Thus more dollars are required to purchase oil.

John,
re: "He does have a great deal to do with increasing, decreasing or stabilizing our national debt "

How so? Does not Congress control the countries "checkbook"? And, is not most of our current spending from increases in mandatory spending and the military?

Finally, if the President actually had proposed significant cuts to discretionary spending, and Congress would have approved those cuts, would that not have been devastating to the overall economy in terms of job losses and GDP growth - resulting in further increases to the deficit/debt?

Excellent points, Larry.

Donna- the nation's economy drove off the cliff in 2008. Some of this is cyclical, but also some of it was systematic failure of decades of policies. Just like after 1929, it will take a number of years to climb back up, no matter who is president. Do you think we'd have been better off with the clueless McPalin in office the last four years?

Mitt is not a "proven successful business man." He's a proven successful investor. Big difference. One creates a product or service to meet a demand. The other is just a savvy gambler, often playing with a stacked deck.

Intellectually dishonest rant, Donna. Mitt was a "financier" not a "businessman" in a sense we (Americans) think of.

The term "businessman" conjures up an image of say for example, someone who owns a plumbing business and would be the one to respond to your call at 2 AM to fix your leaky toilet. Mitt has no such experience or anything even remotely like it.

Nothing wrong with being a financier, (and apparently -- credit where credit is due -- he was a pretty good one) but let's not fall for his trick of intentionally conflating the two very different terms.

Donna, you have it exactly right. I’d vote for you because you seem to understand the problems and can recognize who is best equipped to deal with them. RDBet and Earl, your descriptions of Romney are so wrong. It’s clear you know nothing about his business career. He was far more than just an investor in the companies he worked with.

Totally agree, thanks.

I'll admit I don't particularly respect Obama's performance as President for that matter I wasn't thrilled about a great deal that transpired under Bush. I'd say both of them have been the point of ridicule and butt of many jokes. You can’t say Obama endured more than Bush who had 8 years of it versus 4 years for Obama. Each has had horns and much worse photo shopped onto their pictures and yes, a lot of it is very disrespectful.

What’s happened in the aircraft and auto industries has happened to many others in many different industries. We used to supply aircraft and autos to the world, along with steel, food, medicine and much more. Other countries have recovered from the World War II and developed manufacturing to compete with our exports. In fact they’ve defeated most of our exports and we are left with declining industries.

Why is this happening; we essentially have the highest labors costs, the highest corporate taxes and the most costly regulatory rules in the world.

How many companies has President Obama built?

Elizabeth..The difference is President Obama is not making that claim, but Romney is..Loud & often..Check out what really happened in the Olympics that he brags about,he is on record regarding government funding for them and the fact it would not have happened without tax payer dollars..check the questionable expenditures that had little or nothing to do with the Olympics, but were made anyway. Find a different argument, you go no where with this one. Have a good day.Oh, I see the word troll used quite a bit on this site lately, so I guess that I can expect afew of them to attack me with their "fuzzy" math and other "Obama is ruining the country" crap..I expect it! Have a good day. I have to hit the road to attend a joint Labor Management Board of Trustee meeting that provides training for construction Laborers. Oh, the workers share in the cost & no tax dollars involved!

I suppose then that you're okay with the President touting "green jobs" from stimulus money that was actually spent overseas?

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/

If the President is going to incessantly brag about jobs he's created, he should be transparent about how the tax money was spent.

Romney has built companies, President Obama has built none. It is a fact. You may not like it, you may not think it is relevant in your world, but it is still a fact.

Oh and I will have a good day and the same to you. I'm not sure what your point is about your meeting or its contents....unless of course you expect me to be either 1. impressed or 2. care. Or maybe it's just a desperate attempt to feel self-important. IDK

BTW disagreeing with someone doesn't make you a troll, but complete, undying, unquestioning, blind allegiance to someone definitely makes you a sheep.

Have a productive meeting.

Elizabeth.My meeting was productive, thanks. The point of mentioning it was that I deal with labor & management ..no big deal if it created an issue I withdraw the statement. By no means am I a sheep that follows blindly, sorry to disappoint. I read your article, did you read up on the Olympics? Romney bought, added debt and then sold companies, he is not the job "creator" he claims to be. He was less than honest on the auto manufacturer bail-out & also on green energy.

http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza?rel=emailNation#

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-green-energy/index.html

I guess a person can find all sorts of info if they want to look.

Gary - I don't know exactly what type of work you do but thank you for doing it! Labor needs all the support it can get in these times. And acquisition of skills is always good so I hope the training program is off the ground and helping shape the working future for many.

"Just ignore the Patch poll
40 to 32 in favor of Romney. The Middle Class silent majority rules once again."

Yes, all 40 of them.

There was no need for that type of comment, that is why this is my last comment on Patch. This was a place to talk and get feedback from other situations, no name calling. Yes I am Democratic but to troll, thank you very much.

Virginia, don't take it personally and certainly don't take 'mike k' seriously.

Nobody takes 'mike k' seriously.

Oh Virginia, are you really that blind that you ignore all the awful comments your democratic buddies have posted on the Patch? I'm sorry I offended you, but you really need to toughen up a bit. And yes, there really is a Santa Claus.

"...but you really need to toughen up a bit"

Hilarious. This from the guy who showed up to an Ellisville council meeting to complain that people were picking on him on Patch. The depths of your hypocrisy never cease to entertain.

Oh Caffeinated, I remember you now. You were the five foot midget at the Ellisville meeting crying about Walmart coming to our city. No wonder you don't want to play very old me in basketball. Happy trolling.

Nope. Wasn't there, just heard about it. Also heard about you threatening people with defamation suits because they hurt your feelings on Patch.

See, everyone? He's harmless.

Caffeinated

6:37 pm on Wednesday, October 17, 2012

"Just ignore the Patch poll
40 to 32 in favor of Romney. The Middle Class silent majority rules once again."

Yes, all 40 of them.

Caffeinated, yes, the 40 that are left after the rest moved into poverty. :-)

"Just ignore the Patch poll
40 to 32 in favor of Romney. The Middle Class silent majority rules once again."

Yes, all 40 of them.
Caffeinated,
Yes, the 40 that are left after the rest moved into poverty. :-)

Chesterfield - lol. Not only clinging to their guns and religion - but their capital gains tax breaks as well.

"So are doped up, stupid, or both?"

...says the dork who fails to use pronouns.

A few points Louis:
1) Of course every vote counts. It's our civic duty as citizens.
2) There are numerous elections and ballot initiatives November 6th
3) By your (limited) logic, your own vote won't count as the Electoral College will render it moot when President Obama is re-elected.
4) At the very least, Jacqueline can take solace in the fact that her vote will cancel out your vote.

The president is not a legislator. This president wasn't even a legislator when he was in the Senate as he was never there and started his campaign for prez the minute he set foot in the place. A president should not be expected to start companies, but he should be expected to set the table so entrepreneurs can do so without undue government interference like we have now. Obama has proven he doesn't understand how our system works. He is intent on punishing the "rich" even if it means they go on strike leaving nothing for everyone else. He just announced this morning he will veto any "fiscal cliff" proposal that doesn't raise taxes on anyone making over $200k. In today's economy, that is not rich. He knows there is no way that will pass the GOP led House and will lead to another recession, or worse. He is not worried about his income, he will do fine, recession, or not. How will you survive the next one?

"The president is not a legislator."

http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/Pres/Legislate.html
http://www.netplaces.com/american-government/powers-of-the-president/legislator-in-chief.htm

There is a difference between a President and a legislator. Legislators get to vote on proposed laws. Presidents get to sign or veto them. Given the chance, this President when he was a legislator, usually voted "present."

RealClearPolitics (via Politico) polling averages tell a different tale...

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/?hp=r6

Jim,
Gallup Polls are skewed to favor Romney. Most national polls still show Obama in the lead. Do a Google search of polls and you will see.

Your reference regarding the Lily Ledbetter Act, say Romney did not oppose the act, would not seek to change it and is for equal pay for women.

He clearly said in the debate no women should be denied contraception. He does believe that employers should be able to choose whether or not they pay for it.

Your reference clearly points out that he did not endorse a "personhood" admentment. He does however believe life begins at conception, absolutely.

Your facts do not support your charge, he willingly used the resumes supplied by various women's groups when Governor of Massachusetts.

Basically you've distorted Romney's view and actions toward women and women's issues. I'm happy that you support your candidate of choice but to misrepresent the facts is not in anyone’s interest.

Today the top 5% pay 60% of taxes. How much should they pay?

"Romney did not oppose the act, would not seek to change it and is for equal pay for women."
Yet his advisor Ed Gillespie said that he opposed it when it was being debated. Of course, in what has become a habit of the campaign, he walked it back right after. His running mate voted against it. Surely you understand that this could make him come off as untrustworthy on the subject.

"He clearly said in the debate no women should be denied contraception."
Which time?
February 29: “I’m not for the bill.”
Later on February 29:
"Of course I support the Blunt amendment."

"He does however believe life begins at conception, absolutely."
And I support his right to believe this. Again, his running mate believes in personhood, and has in the past seemed pretty okay with putting women in jail for ending pregnancies.

"he willingly used the resumes supplied by various women's groups when Governor of Massachusetts."
Actually, he and his female opponent were asked to sign pledges to hire in a way that would reflect the population of Massachusetts at the time. Putting aside the yuck factor of having to make politicians do that, let's not throw around words like "willingly used resumes" "distortion" in the same post.

Rachel, I simply checked the references given in the post by Joseph Robert and reported back with the facts of what they really said. He apparently was very willing to distort these facts.

Even with your jaded view of Romney, you cannot believe any politician would oppose equal pay for women.

Yes, in the latest debate he clearly said, “no woman should be denied contraception."

You agreed with my comment on conception then you brought up the abortion issue. I believe the Supreme Court has ruled on this and any attempts to change it will be futile. I’m sick of people like you who only have one issue to measure the various opponents. I don’t care if you are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, it’s over.

"He willingly used the resumes supplied by various women's groups when Governor of Massachusetts." Do you believe he didn’t willingly use the resumes or do you think that’s a distortion of the facts. Your comment was senseless.

"People like me"? You presume to know a lot about me based on one interaction.

"Even with your jaded view of Romney, you cannot believe any politician would oppose equal pay for women."

I get to be jaded *and* senseless. Squee! No I wouldn't think any political candidate would oppose equal pay for women. That's why I'm so confused about why there has been any wavering. You remember John Kerry? '04? Dreadful candidate, but that's beside the point. I recall that being a flip flopper made him Beelzebub. Anyway, I have to trust that Romney means what he says when he says gov't should stay out of business. Sure I believe he *thinks* it's unacceptable for a business to have a sexist payroll. I'm just not sure he'd do anything about it.

"Do you believe he didn’t willingly use the resumes or do you think that’s a distortion of the facts."

The distortion was his. In the debate, he said he sought out the resumes when it's far more fair to say he *willingly* used them because he was bound by a pledge he signed. Do I think he *willingly* used the resumes because he didn't want to lose an election or catch hell for breaking a pledge? Sure. Do I *willingly* go to the dentist so my teeth don't fall out? Sure. I just don't walk around telling people how I sought out a 2nd & 3rd dentist because people just aren't going to the dentist enough.

(cont)

Look, I don't even agree with the original post you took issue with. I don't think anyone should have her vagina taken away for voting Republican. My post was simply to point out that distortion goes both ways, so can we puuuuuleeze stop pretending it doesn't?

Rachel, upon hearing more from you I believe we have more in common than not.

I too hate the distortions and misrepresentations that are spawned from both campaigns. It’s amazing how the use of one word versus another can cause the alarms to go off. For example, the signing of a pledge is a willful act, not a forced one. Therefore, he willingly used the resumes. We do disagree about this, I think he likes women and that he was happy to get the input of resumes from the various women’s groups. No successful business person would be so dumb as to look past an opportunity like this. You’re always looking for good people.

Whether they were delivered to him or whether he sought them out is semantics. I’m sure at some point he or someone on his staff must have “sought them out” by saying, hey let’s look at those resumes, or perhaps they were forced to take them in their hands and made to look at them. BTW glad to hear you’re taking care of those teeth.

"Whether they were delivered to him or whether he sought them out is semantics."

It's more than semantics to me, because this is where I'm driven crazy: WHY embellish the story? WHY take the chance that the advocacy group who produced the binders in the first place would call you out with a big ol' "Well, actually, that's not really how it happened"? If he were to have said "You know, this bipartisan group came to me with concerns that women didn't have enough of a voice in government. They asked me to make a promise to change that in my administration, and I did." He said this instead:

"I said, 'How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men.' They said, 'Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.' And I said, 'Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?' I said, 'How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men.' They said, 'Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.' And I said, 'Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?
[snip for space]
I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Smarmy. And not nearly as noble as the truth, which is called sticking to his word. Signing a pledge is willful, but fearing the fallout from blowing it off are real too. I wouldn't vote for him even if he said it my way, but I still find it gross.

I bite my tongue every time I come to this site. I can live with differences of opinion..but some take it too far! This goes beyond Obama bashing! Mike K, do you just pull info out of your backside (assuming your head is not in the way) or is your view point so slanted that you walk side ways? Get a grip..stop blaming President Obama for everything! You do not like him, fine..you have made your point.

Hey Mike you seem to like conspiracy theories so google "The Mormon Church Conspiracy" then you can see how ridiculous all this nonsense is - conspiracy theories can be found anywhere about anything and they are just meant to rile people up and scare them. Chill out hon and don't believe everything you read or your told.

Excellent points on the environmental and energy issues. I see Romney as saying whatever he thinks will play with the right - I'm thinking he will go much more moderate if elected. I don't know how the tea partiers will take that but I wasn't so pleased to see Obama go to the middle. I'm hopeful movements like Occupy will continue to create awareness of the income disparity and it might be interesting to see if the election of a Mormon (rather than a Evangelical Christian) might shift the idea of a community and social contract. Hmmmmm... Do you see anyone taking on immigration - I mean really? Reagan was the last and what he did would be considered FAR left-leaning in these times. I think those in power figure they have a decade or so before they actually feel the pressures of the Latino voters so they will try to skate as long as possible. Interesting - thanks for playing!

Here's another question for the Tea Party folks to consider if Romney won:

What if the Democratic congressmen used the same "do everything to make sure the President fails" strategy that the Republican Congressmen have been pulling for the last 4 years?

How would they react if the tables were turned?

I see you have agreed to drink the Kool-Aid of the moment that has been poured by the Right-Wing Media Machine. Talk is cheap Mary, talk is cheap. I'm sure you could do a much better job.

There, is that what you want to hear?

The Missourian said, “Here's the core of the problem with today's GOP. If it was 1861, they'd support the confederacy.” Let’s see Abe Lincoln, a Republican, was President in 1861.

He continued with, “If it was 1919, they'd be against womens' suffrage.” Republican Senator Aaron Sargent was the first to introduce a constitutional amendment supporting the women’s suffrage in 1878.

I could go on but why. There are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any issue, including all the fearful bigots you refer too. I find it offensive that you characterize your fellow citizens and neighbors, as you’ve done here and then say, “We’re better than that.” Apparently you aren’t.

I can hardly wait to see what inane response I get to this.

Son, here's a history lesson:

1) The stances of today's political parties, versus their stances 100 or 150 years ago are completely irrelevant. It is a well-known fact of history that between the 1930's/New Deal and the 1960's/Civil Rights era, the parties effectively switched sides on a great many issues. Remember, the Republic-ans were founded to preserve the Union - how exactly does that jive with the States' Rights BS we hear so much about from today's GOP - exactly the same arguments I might add that were being used by the south to justify slavery back in the day. There isn't much in a party's name besides what it stands for RIGHT NOW. I'd even argue that the Dems of 40 years ago and the Dems of today are a different beast. Kind of like how the GOP hasn't fielded a decent presidential candidate since Dole, and how Nixon would be considered an unelectable flaming liberal by today's GOP. So, uh, yeah dude. As I was saying?

2) Reading comprehension: when I say "today's GOP", is it not clear I am referring to today's GOP, and not the abolitionist GOP of 1854? Because if it's not, I'll work on finding a better way of saying it. Maybe something like "today Republican no like 1854 Republican. Not same."

And for the record - saying I am better than the fearful bigots? I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I’m not your son and if I were I certainly wouldn’t let anyone know. You’re right today’s parties are not what they used to be and I never said or implied that they were. You quote a few facts and seem to think they prove some point, but just as in your original post they are irrelevant to today’s problems. I doubt seriously you could give anyone a meaningful history lesson.
It’s interesting how anyone who has a different idea or opinion than you is a fearful bigot. Your blow-hard rhetoric is boring and hateful. I hope it does not reflect your real person.

"today’s parties are not what they used to be and I never said or implied that they were."

Son, get your story straight. You predicated your entire previous post on the idea that Lincoln = Republican, and a pre 20th c. Republican supported womens' suffrage, incidentally when it still WAS Lincoln's party - and that somehow this had a bearing on today's GOP. Today's GOP has little room for moderates, let alone liberals of any sort. Being bluntly honest and factual is vastly different than being hateful. Arrogant? Yes, absolutely. Because my views are better, and based on facts and science rather than factiness and voodoo.

You’re a perfect example of what’s wrong with the people who’ve hijacked the word liberal. You are an arrogant, blow hard whose rhetoric is an affront to the core beliefs that you claim to embrace. You are not only disrespectfully of others, but you continue to exhibit your stupidity. I feel pity for those who must endure your envy and hatred on a daily basis. Clearly it sucks to be you!

I haven't hijacked anything. On the contrary, I'm just giving the Tea Partiers some of their own medicine. It's pretty awesome stuff, isn't it?

Well said Missourian. You have quite a bit of patience in refuting these irrational tea party extremists. Grover Norquist/Sarah Palin disciples -what a foundation!

Talk is cheap, and all I see here is potshots from some kid living in his parents' basement (figuratively or literally). Please come back when you learn a few things about the complexities of how the world operates. This is why you can't have nice things.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

Should the Ellisville PD be notified that you're planning armed action when President Obama wins re-election, Mike Kelly?

There are so many reasons that I don't want you living near me, yet you always seem to come up with more.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mike Kelly is a fixed-income retiree living in a small duplex off Old State Road. He is not a millionaire. He is, however, a delusional sociopath and diehard Republican voter.

Please don't support these bastards. A vote for Romney is a vote for mike k.

So...your household, and your sons' households, EACH - earn $380k or more a year (that's the 1% threshold FYI)? ???? F'real man? I mean, really?

First of all, I can safely report I am not a bastard as I have a copy of my birth certificate having been born to my mother and father who were legally married at the time. Secondly, I have made my money and am comfortably living off the interest and dividends derived from my investment portfolio. Regarding my sons, my oldest had a gross income in excess of $350K last year while my youngest son and wife had a gross income in excess of $500K last year. Both my sons with bonuses expect to do even better this year. Hope that helps.

Don't forget to tell everyone about your IQ and racing career, big guy.

Don't waste your breath, Gary. The incessant self-aggrandizing is nothing more than a sure sign of someone with a self esteem so low I'm kind of embarrassed for him. It's sad really.

And don't try to convince him that he walks among people who vote Democrat and have advanced degrees, great jobs, stable finances, and happy children. You'll get no farther with that than he's gotten trying to convince us that he has a life we should envy.