His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

[Jim Beaux]

What I remember of Reagan was not impressive, but most of what I remember was from the Iran/Contra trials so its not a great assessment.

Considering the mess Reagan inherited from Carter when he took office, & considering the state of the world when he left, Reagan was simply a miracle worker. (btw: The dem congress extorted Bush 41 & sabotaged the economy in order to retake the White House.)

Clinton was merely a passenger on the Reagan Trickle Down Economy.

Any informed person would have never made the statements you did.

[The Annoyed Man]

I know lots of folks are mad about the healthcare issue, but it doesn't matter much to me.

Well, since his healthcare plan is going to personally cost me thousands of dollars I don't have in fines, and without anything in exchange except staying out of jail, and I STILL don't have any flippin' health insurance because I can't afford it and because his plan breaks the system even worse than it was already broken, how about if I don't give much much of a rip if your retirement plan goes down the toilet because you failed to plan for it? Is that the America you want? How about if I hope most fervently that you get the future you planned for?

I'm pretty much done with you.

[RoyGBiv]

Clinton's results looked good because he was riding Reagan's economic coattails
I give Clinton credit for not mucking it up like GWB did but Clinton was a man with no honor

I agree with you on quite a bit, but what made Bill Clinton look good was him being reigned in by Republicans in Congress for a good portion of his Presidency...the credit I give to Clinton was in being self-serving enough to know he had to compromise occasionally if he wanted to keep on looking good...

I don't think we disagree here. I was being a bit generous giving BC credit when some of the credit goes to congress. Unlike BHO, BC was able to move towards the center.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well tell us; do you support Obama?

Nope

If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Oh, I can't wait to read the answer to this one, although I think we all know what's coming. Since it is "silly" to say it's a 2 man race, who, pray tell, is the 3rd person with a chance to win?

What arrogance! Yes, I want a good President and the sad fact is that in my 62 years the Democrats haven't produced a single one, not one. (Don't try throwing JFK out there either, I was alive when he was President and none of his publicity was accurate. Had he not been assassinated in 1963, he would have lost the election in 1964 and he would have faded into obscurity and been forgotten like Grover Cleveland.) So the chance of having a "good" President are far better with a Republican than a Democrat.

And in my 37 years neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced any stellar presidents, but I think Clinton was pretty good.

What I remember of Reagan was not impressive, but most of what I remember was from the Iran/Contra trials so its not a great assessment.

Let's see, you were 5 or 6 years old when Reagan was elected and 13 or 14 years old when he left office. Unless you were unusually interested in politics at a very early age (I was), then I suspect I see why you don't remember much about the greatest President in the history of our country. If all you can remember is Iran-Contra, then you don't know anything. Carter gave the U.S. something the so-called experts said was impossible -- inflation and recession at the same time. He gutted the U.S. economy, U.S. intelligence capability, and respect for the U.S. worldwide in less than his one 4-year term. This is what Reagan inherited. What did he give us in return? He gave us a strong economy (because supply-side economics does work), a strong military (enough to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991), worldwide respect for the power and will of the American people (because they know gutless, cowardly Democrats no longer controlled U.S. foreign policy), and pride in being an American.

George HW Bush was nothing exciting. The economy wasn't great and Desert Shield/Storm could definitely have been handled much better.

The economy absolutely was great!. However, it was the result of Reagan's supply-side economics, not anything H.W. did himself.

Clinton passed welfare reform, presided over a great economy with a balanced budget, and he didn't commit many US troops to crap around the world that was none of our business. He was an idiot with his personal life though and let that get in the way. He was also a fool for bothering to answer any questions about his personal life to congress.

Others have already debunked your false claims about Clinton passing welfare reform. Also as they noted, he enjoyed the benefits of Reagan's supply-side economics, so I'll turn to your apparent lack of interest in moral character. Clinton was an amoral low-life who had no business being elected to city council, much less President of the United States. Lying under oath (deposition) is perjury, a crime, for which people all too seldom actually spend time in jail. He played word games with the definition of the word "is" and as a 49 year old President, abused his position of power and authority to engage in sexual activities in the White House with a 22 year old girl (a "kid" in my opinion) who was awestruck at being the focus of attention by the most powerful man in the world. He then abused his power and position again to get every major television and radio network to give him free airtime to lie to every single American by claiming that he "never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Had Monica not saved the famous/infamous dress, Clinton would never have admitted the truth. When faced with indisputable physical evidence, he lied again by claiming what he did didn't constitute "sex."

Obviously, this doesn't matter to you, but it matters a great deal to me and many others. The real irony is that, unless I'm really missing the mark on who you claim is a viable 3rd person in the Presidential race, you are going to claim you support him because he has character. I can only presume that your definition of "character" and mine are markedly different.

George W Bush was a horrible president. For the economy and for the rights of US citizens he was a train wreck...

"W" did some things I don't like, like sign (but not pass) the Patriot Act. I wish we had simply destroyed Iraq and left, but to call him a train wreck is typical Ron Paul and/or Democrat garbage. The war ruined the economy, but the war was necessary. In my view, it could have and should have ended earlier, but I have to admit that if we had left it a smoking hole like I supported, then we'd be back again in a few years because Iran would have taken it over.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Niall Ferguson is a Havard professor of History. I beg anybody who is an Obama supporter to read this article on the Newsweek Magazine blog "The Daily Beast." For the record, although the author confesses to be a right of center mainstream republican, you have to remember that this is NEWSWEEK publishing this. They could have easily spiked it.  In other words, this is their unofficial position on Obama. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... to-go.html

There is too much to quote here, but some of it, from very inside NAMED sources describe Obama as literally not knowning what he is doing, economically or diplomatically. This article, along with the Paul Ryan videos which have seen recent circulation, for the most cogent argument I've ever seen in 42 years of voting for why we should NOT reelect a president. And this is the unofficial position of a liberal publication. Furthermore, IT IS THEIR NEXT COVER STORY!!!

Obama is going to get crushed.

[Heartland Patriot]

Clinton's results looked good because he was riding Reagan's economic coattails
I give Clinton credit for not mucking it up like GWB did but Clinton was a man with no honor

I agree with you on quite a bit, but what made Bill Clinton look good was him being reigned in by Republicans in Congress for a good portion of his Presidency...the credit I give to Clinton was in being self-serving enough to know he had to compromise occasionally if he wanted to keep on looking good...

I don't think we disagree here. I was being a bit generous giving BC credit when some of the credit goes to congress. Unlike BHO, BC was able to move towards the center.

Indeed, who can forget the famous "Clintonian triangulation"?

[Heartland Patriot]

Niall Ferguson is a Havard professor of History. I beg anybody who is an Obama supporter to read this article on the Newsweek Magazine blog "The Daily Beast." For the record, although the author confesses to be a right of center mainstream republican, you have to remember that this is NEWSWEEK publishing this. They could have easily spiked it.  In other words, this is their unofficial position on Obama. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... to-go.html

There is too much to quote here, but some of it, from very inside NAMED sources describe Obama as literally not knowning what he is doing, economically or diplomatically. This article, along with the Paul Ryan videos which have seen recent circulation, for the most cogent argument I've ever seen in 42 years of voting for why we should NOT reelect a president. And this is the unofficial position of a liberal publication. Furthermore, IT IS THEIR NEXT COVER STORY!!!

Obama is going to get crushed.

TAM, in all seriousness, from your mouth to the Good Lord's ear.

[The Annoyed Man]

to Common Sense on Facebook:

[tallmike]

to Common Sense on Facebook:

As much as we all disagree, that cartoon is funny! =)

[longhorn_92]

to Common Sense on Facebook:

[The Annoyed Man]

Niall Ferguson is a Havard professor of History. I beg anybody who is an Obama supporter to read this article on the Newsweek Magazine blog "The Daily Beast." For the record, although the author confesses to be a right of center mainstream republican, you have to remember that this is NEWSWEEK publishing this. They could have easily spiked it.  In other words, this is their unofficial position on Obama. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... to-go.html

There is too much to quote here, but some of it, from very inside NAMED sources describe Obama as literally not knowning what he is doing, economically or diplomatically. This article, along with the Paul Ryan videos which have seen recent circulation, for the most cogent argument I've ever seen in 42 years of voting for why we should NOT reelect a president. And this is the unofficial position of a liberal publication. Furthermore, IT IS THEIR NEXT COVER STORY!!!

Obama is going to get crushed.

TAM, in all seriousness, from your mouth to the Good Lord's ear.

BTW, here is the cover I was talking about:

[sjfcontrol]

Wow! I may just have to buy me a Newsweek! Haven't cracked one in years.

[The Annoyed Man]

THIS is the face of the democrats these days:

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16789
Teacher Upset She Can't Retire at 47
MEA member says reform bill calling for teachers to contribute minimally to retirement is unfair
By TOM GANTERT | April 18, 2012

Terri List says she would tell her students not to become a teacher in Michigan.

Why?

One of the reasons is because the Saginaw Township Community School District English teacher won’t be able to retire at age 47 as she has hoped.

List was highlighted by the Michigan Education Association as one of the critics of Senate Bill 1040, which would require public school employees to contribute at least 5 percent of their compensation to their retirement plan.

The MEA reported on its website: "Saginaw Township teacher Terry (sic) List had hoped to retire in the next three years when she was 47 years old. That wouldn’t be possible under SB 1040. List would have to work another 16 years to be eligible for health benefits."

“By the time I’m 60, I would have put in 43 years of service, earning a salary at the top of the pay scale. How does that save the district money? You could hire two people for the cost of one and encourage young people to join the profession. Right now, I would not recommend to my pupils to become a teacher in Michigan.”

List didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

{snip.........}

Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, called List’s comments “amazing.”

“Wow. They have reached the politicians’ level of entitlement,” Drolet said. “She thinks she is entitled to retire at 47? Holy smokes. I don’t know what more to say to that. A government employee thinking that 47 is a reasonable expectation to retire shows just how deep inside their own bubble they live, insulated from the real world.”

THIS is what we are up against. THIS is why Obamanomics is insane. THIS is why it is absolutely critical to vote for the one candidate—even if he isn't perfect—who has a prayer of getting elected and to get the 20-headed hydra that is the Obama cartel out of the business of governing.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing ... 20PoliticsAugust 20, 2012
Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008
Divided as to whether they would be better off in four years under Obama or Romney
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states say they are not better off than they were four years ago; 40% say they are better off. Swing-state voters' assessments of their situation compared with 2008 have varied little since last fall.

56% No, 40% Yes.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Pr ... enter.aspx
Obama45%-Romney 47%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

Monday, August 20, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 44% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

(By the way, historically, whenever a challenger has been this close or up on a sitting President this close to the election, the President has lost more than he's won.)



Like I keep saying Obama is going to get crushed.

[RoyGBiv]

BTW, here is the cover I was talking about:

And here's the full article...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... to-go.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My favorite quote?

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.
.........
And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.