Magox

Is that solid enough?

I believe that we as a country should be more inclusive and that the rhetoric from the right to be too divisive. Whether you like it or not, there are a few realities regarding immigration, one the net gain from an economic standpoint outweighs the costs incurred from illegal immigration, two in order for there to be meaningful growth, population growth through immigration is a key part to making that happen and three from a political standpoint, the latino population is the fastest growing population in the US,and if the conservatives want to win elections moving forward, they better start gameplanning a strategy that includes them in their tent. Jeb Bush gets it, and so does Marco Rubio. And I hate watching these primaries, specially this one, simply because the tea party without a doubt has driven the conservative movement a few notches to the right, so everyone is trying to prove that they are more conservative than the guy next to him (except Ron Paul of course). It's a turnoff. And for many people, specially in the age of the American Idol society, people look at these issues almost if not more than they look at who can run this economy better. Like I said, if the focus can stay on the economy, ROmney wins, he is vastly superior to Obama when it come to handling the economy and the debt, if the Obama campaign can divert the attention away from the economy (which they will desperately want to) and steer it towards social issues, how Repubiclans are stuck in the dark ages, immigration, how Romney hate poor people and wants to protect his wall street buddies and that he waxes poetic about trees being the right size, then Obama wins.

Yep, on this issue he is

The GOP is on the wrong side of this issue.

Told ya, a mindless meat puppet that defends anyone who has a D in front of is name.

Idiot

The only constant here is that people on this message board from every spectrum of the political aisle, whether it be from the right, the left and the middle all believe that you are a fact hating blithering idiot.

I choose Romney because he is supremely qualified over Obama in just about every economic metric fathomable. You on the other hand are for Obama because he has a D in front of his name. Some people go home and punch the punching bag to let loose, I decide to verbally eviscerate DiN. Different strokes for Different folks.

You're a fact hating dipshit. Plain and simple.

Listen you little sniveling snotnose, I know you have a hard time between distinguishing opinion and fact, so to be better assist you with your deficiencies, what John McCain provided is what we call a political opinion, what the GAO provided was information based on facts. comprende? However, since you hate facts, which FACT CHECK just provided, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

I usually tip about 20% if its really bad service, from there it goes up.

Of course it will, the CBO projections are based on current policy and if things moved ahead according to plan, which they won't of course, odds are the debt will be much worse than the CBO projects. FYI, so far the debt has been worse than the CBO has projected every year since the president has been in office.

No I didn't dipshit. Which is why I posted it He said "it's hard to say" in other words, he doesn't know.

OMG Dude, either say something or just don't say anything at all. I don't know if I've ever seen someone say nothing as frequent as you do. Really

Seems like I'm always correcting you, I mean I know you like hate facts and stuff but here you go. FROM FACT CHECK So lets review here, since we know you hate reading facts that don't support your narrow views. 1) The $1.3 Billion that was received, $342M was directly related for Olympics 2) $960 Million was going there regardless of the Olympics 3) Out of the $342 Million, $185M was for security, NOT INCLUDING extra security costs as a result of 9/11, which from any rational thinking person (Not you) would believe that millions more would of gone towards extra security. Funny how your criticism sounds like a DNC talking point. I guess that pretty much reinforces what I've been saying all along, you are mindless, fact hating, DNC talking point parrot. Now thats from those guys called FACT CHECK. And we know you hate Facts, so my guess is that you won't accept their results, since you know, you hate facts and stuff.

I've already defended Santorum much more than I am comfortable with, he is not my sort of candidate at all, but no way on god's green earth would I ever vote for Obama over Santorum and that's the end of this topic for me.

You may end up being right.

I would argue that being a Venture capitalist is probably the best private sector experience you could possibly have to be president. What does a Venture capitalist do? Well, they apply capital and take some sort of ownership on either a start up or struggling company. Just for a little tidbit of information, close to 10% of all private sector jobs come through private equity/venture capitalism. What would a venture capitalist attempt to do in a typical failing company? Identify waste,then eliminate it,identify best sources of demand, then innovate products or services to suffice that demand, streamline them, increase efficiency, market products , execute sales, maximize profits, reward and retain competent employees. Mitt Romney was widely regarded as one of best in the business. There is a reason why he was called upon to help the Olympics, and it certainly wasn't because he was the son of daddy warbucks. He not only was an extremely successful venture capitalist, but he did turn what was about to be a very embarrassing Olympics for our country into a success. There was scandal, inefficiency and the Olympics was grossly overbudget. Under his leadership, it all turned around. His experience as a venture capitalist helped make that happen. So how could his experience as a venture capitalist help as President of the U.S? Well, we are a country that is struggling with job creation, **** load of waste in government, lack of innovaton and a tremendous debt program. His experience in venture capitalism and executive experience as governor of a blue state, which mean that he had to work across the aisle a good bit would be very well suited to address some of these issues. Lets contrast that to President Obama. His experience was that he was on the faculty of Harvard, community organizer, state senator and served a little over half a term as Senator in which he never produced a meaningful piece of legislation and had one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. I would say that is an accurate description, wouldn't you agree? Let's be real here, honestly, who is the more qualified person to address the economy and our debt? Seriously. Not only was Obama woefully qualified to be president, but his body of work proves that. I'm just trying to put things into perspective here. And in regards to if he ran the governor as a true conservative, I could give two ***** about that. This conservative litmust test crap is a bunch of BS.

DiN, Why should anyone provide anything to you? You hate facts and are incapable of reason. I need to follow my sig. more often Why should anyone believe that? Every projection the presidents team has ever come up with has always missed the mark by a long shot.

Well lets see here, you have 1349 posts, I would say look back at your posting history and just pick any one of them.

Na, just laughing at ya... nothing more man.

The American public is akin to an 11 year old with A.D.D "Johnny! Johnny!! focus! stop looking at the fish bowl, I know the little fishy looks kinda funny, but you gotta study."

What a meat puppet

David arent you embarrassed by now?

I've been reading about this, and this is a perfect cotrolled experiment of what not to do.