Magox

First off I don't believe Ron Paul would accept. Maybe a few followers would get on the Romney train, but I know plenty of Paul Supporters and I can tell that the ones I know that support him, they are so far to the left that they have gone full circle and somehow in a quasi dimensional world have reached Pauls inner right side. These guys won't support Romney, they like Paul because he's genuine and because he speaks about individual liberty (even though they really don't know what Paul means by that, but it sounds cool), and that he has isolationist foreign policy view that they dig. Having said that, Paul has got all sorts of supporters,but these that are my friends, won't support ROmney.

Is Dead

It's truly amazing how this point hasn't been driven home or even mildly reported with any sort of emphasis from ANY of the news outlets. It's amazing. Shouldn't a true journalist want to find the truth? Shouldn't they want to share that with their viewers? Think about it, you have an unemployment rate that is dropping on paper, but in reality, there are so many people that feel hopeless about their ability to find jobs, that they all together give up on that possibility and therefore are not considered in that phony unemployment rate. Never would have I of believed that there would be that many hopeless people out there. 1.2 Million gave up looking for a job in ONE month. This is the first time I have heard that reported. That is what should of gotten the headlines, but unfortunately, journalists ignored this fact. The reality is that the people of this country feel more hopeless than they have felt since the great depression. But hip hip hooooray the unemployment rate is 8.3%

Ummm, no. You are confused, what you are referring to is when they score legislation and the effects it will have. When they score pieces of legislation, that is based on data that they receive from members of congress. When the CBO forecasts the national annual deficit and its further out years, that is based on current policy. When the CBO forecast GDP growth and unemployment figures, that is based on macro economic data. Let me tell you whats happened here, you saw a right wing link, you jumped the gun, and you automatically dismissed it without reading the meat of the CBOreport. Now, you are attempting to justify your error and rather than just admitting that you made a mistake you are digging a deeper hole and looking more and more foolish with every response you post. The fact that you said is astonishingly ignorant. Really??? What are you questioning? Their motives? How they derived their conclusion? What? You want to compare your macroeconomic data along side theirs and compare data? Maybe you and your team will come up with a more appropriate and logical set of data points and conclusions over the vast CBO macroeconomic team.

Even socialists own guns.

Ok, provide the proper context for us, here are the facts of their conclusions, the U.S debt will be higher than they expected topping over a Trillion dollars, meaning every year in office it's topped that number, they expect GDP growth to be slower than expected, they originally forecast 2.7% now they are forecasting 2.2% and originally they expected the Unemployment rate to be around 8.2% and now the forecast 8.8%. Here is the rightwing news outlet politicos take on it today, pertaining to this subject Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html#ixzz1lEbJ5yZK Now please, provide for us the correct context of the report

This is what I was talking about, and looks as if he's not gonna change his view, remember all those Reagan Democrats/Independents in the rust belt? Those guys were never enamored with he president as it is, yet they reluctantly broke with the president in 08 ("gun toting" comment see PA.), considering the poor economy, US soaring debt, an issue like this could be the final straw, and as I noted earlier, it very well may be enough to make a difference on the margins in which these battleground states could very well be determined by just a few percentage points. And from what I've been reading, when you include the SUPER PACS, Conservatives very well may end up with more money than the liberals (Obama is underperforming in campaign raising relative to expectations)this year and when you have a guy as politically smart as Karl Rove is who is set to raise $240 Million , you better believe he is gonna hammer this issue over and over and over in this critical ("guntoting") rustbelt region. Also, could you just imagine if Rubio accepted the VP selection, who better to discuss with the Latino overwhelmingly catholic population regarding this issue? Turn out the lights.... Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345_Page2.html#ixzz1lEQvABsV

It can only one of three things, and only one of these three. One, you either caught the tail end of this comment and you innocently parroted it to all of us here. Two, you are such an extreme partisan hack that you are making an intellectually dishonest case to make your point. Or three, you are a complete moron who is incapable of understanding statements within context. Here is what he said Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72297.html#ixzz1lBDsuwop So which is it, one, two or three? Having said that, it was an exceptionally inartful comment to say, Romneys political acumen and self-awareness of his own perceived caricature that his opponents are creating is sorely lacking. This line of attack won't work on substantive people, unfortuntely many people aren't, as you can see, it works on the feeble minded (see Pasta Joe) . His team needs to address this now, or else this image will soon be irreversible in the eyes of many independents.

Hey, Life's not fair, so we just get over it You know, I was thinkin somethin along those lines right after I typed that

I care about results, everything else plays second fiddle.

It comes from the CBO dipshit

Maybe, but you're talking hypotheticals, I'm strictly expressing my judgement based on current TANGIBLE results. In regards to his perceived weakness, I honestly believe that is overblown, sure I'd rather have a president that APPEARS to be a little tougher and less apologetic but once again, I care about results, thats the way I was raised, its logical and everything else in between from my perspective is a bunch of noise.

Yeah, same thing

I don't know, most likely the trigger would of been pushed, but end result, he did and he died and I don't know about you but for my mother, brother, father and I, we celebrated and it happened during his watch. In regards to leading from behind, end result, he was taken out, we didn't lose lives and we spent hardly any money. WTF is wrong with that????????? Who cares what you or I think consists of "leadership" in the real world, whether its business or in our personal lives, what matters are results, so while many of you wanna argue that he didn't show leadership, who the !@#$ cares? The job was completed, in the most proficient of manners, without loss of life and tremendous cost to our nation, and anyone who can't recognize that fact has got too much partisan **** in their eyes and needs to take a step back and recognize. Now if you want to talk about the economy, the debt and our entitlement problems, then all one has to do is look at the product and see that he has failed miserably, but the end product from where we can judge now regarding foreign policy has been a sucess.

I do agree with you, but OBL is dead and most likely he won't be coming back, so the advantage of hindsight most likely won't change 20 years from now, and in regards to Libya, only unless you were Ron Paul, Khadafy (sp)? would of been taken out, so it just would of been a matter of how and considering that we didn't lose hardly any if any lives and didn't spend much time consumed over there and didn't incur hardly any costs,I would have to rate that (up to now)from my perspective a complete victory. I don't believe anyone should underscore the significance of taking out OBL, that was huge, on so many levels. There is plenty to criticize the man for, but in all honesty, foreign policy has been an area where he has outperformed relative to expectations.

Newt Gingrich is the largest cancer in the conservative movement. He is one of the most vindictive, self-absorbed politicians that I have ever seen. He sucks ass.

Yep, All in all I give him an A. Taking out Bin Laden was great for the country and gave us some much needed payback. The Apologizing for America I'll give him a pass on, considering the success we had with OBL and Libya. I actually am 100 % supportive of the lead from behind strategy, and from my perspective it worked phenomenally well. It's about time we encouraged our European "partners" to pony up and do more. I had this sort of discussion with someone else on FB the other day, I unlike many other people am not ideologically driven, these conservative litmus tests are for the idealogues and sheeples and I don't give two ***** about typical right or left wing rhetoric, so this bowing down to other foreign leaders has virtually very very very very little to do with my overall calculation in determining who is and is'nt a good president. I care about results, and in regards to foreign policy, he's delivered.

You're convinced Obama is great and that's that. Eyes, shut, ears plugged, neener neener. The reality is the president gets an A on foreign policy, an F at how he's handle the economy, an F at dealing with our National Debt an F at addressing our ever expanding Entitlement programs and an A on rhetoric. Ronald Reagan and Clinton were the last two good presidents we've had, the last two have been atrocious. In regards to this thread, it sucks, absolutely nothing wrong with the first lady promoting healthier eating, as a matter of fact, its great, the only REAL way we will help solve our health care issues is through wellness programs and diet is a huge part of that, but no, politicians are always looking for evil boogeymen just so mindless numbskulls can display their instinctual herd mentalities and parrot their talking points, such as blaming health insurance companies for our health care problems, which only partisan idiots fall for. and Really? You really brought the race card into this discussion. There is a reason why people hate politics,and one of them is when people parrot what politicians do which from the left side isto always bring out the race card. Truly pathetic.

Cue DC Tom

This is a poor analogy that the left has attempted to justify the health insurance mandate. One huge difference and that is called liability, if you are financing or leasing a vehicle to a customer, you need to require that the customer has insurance or it is more than likely, if an accident occurred that he may skip out on paying for the damage, leaving the creditor stuck with the loss. Also, liability insurance, if you are driving a machine that could kill or injure another person, then there has to be safguards in place to help ensure that the culpable party pays for the damage. But nice try Buftex

Na, I'm gonna annoint him, cuz thats whats gonna happen. Btw, he will continue to prove himself, watch and see. In regards to the Obama adm. stance on this position, they better do a 180, if not I see this as being a significant issue that would undoubtedly have an effect on the margins, and in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, if you piss off enough catholics, in these battleground states, a few percentage points could make the difference. And this is before all this **** is happening, if this thing carries on, those numbers will drop, and there are alot of Catholic prolife independent and moderate Democrats in the rust belt region.

As exaggerated as your statement may sound, it's actually pretty spot on!