WorldTraveller

<p> You are certifiably (*^*&amp;%^&#036;^#stupid. So you somehow equate "evangelical/fundamentalist" as someone who believes that you can't get pregnant from rape?Is that what you are saying bird brain?

<p> Now that made a little more sense

<p> Sorry, I don't understand gibberish.

<p> Wow!If that truly is an attempt to distort the reality of the Missouri electorate, that should cause great concern for those that follow polls, and should delegitimize them from ever being listed as a responsible polling outfit.

<p> No problem bud <p> LV polls are the better indicators, and if you go by the LV's it is virtually dead locked.

<p> I'm bettin that you get an orgasm every time you mention the word "teabagger"

<p> Yes he does, and the thought of a mental midget using a stethoscope is the scariest part of it all.

Sure it is, and you can keep repeating it to you are in blue in the face, but that's not going to stop a good sensible law from being enacted.

No one takes you seriously Agreed. Momentum is on their side, and they have defied conventional wisdom and have been winning the Medicare debate. I just got done reading an article from mark Caputo, arguably south floridas most respected journalist and he wrote a piece today acknowledging how Romney and Ryan are controlling the debate on this issue.

I'm sure his intention wasn't to be offensive, but was. Not only was it offensive, but it was extraordinarily ignorant, with not a shred of evidence to support his caveman like views. There is a reason why just about everybody is imploring him to drop out of the race, because his views are not only out of the mainstream, but are unequivocally false and insensitive. This isn't a "gotcha" gaffe, it's a display of an outdated man that is not fit to run for national office.

<p> Such as?

"legitimate rape," pregnancy is rare because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Go ahead defend it

As we always knew, Liberals love to preach how others should pay more, yet they are the stingiest hypocrites in the country. - Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday. The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008. The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given. And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent. “The reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity,” the study’s authors noted. - Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79888.html#ixzz247dcoRuI

The problem is that he doesn't believe it's stupid and that in his mind, it's somehow true.

Drop the !@#$ out moron! Surprised no one really brought this topic up

<p> Again, wilting under pressure from the left. The only reason why he mentioned that $3k mortgage refi deal is because there was a critical piece in the NY times of how he has handled the mortgage crisis.Obama and co. are only concerned when they receive criticism from the left, the rest of the country from their perspective can !@#$ off.

-Obama’s trash-talking competitiveness, a trait that has defined him since his days on the court as a basketball-obsessed teenager in Hawaii, was on display one night last February, when the president spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. “Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?” the president asked her. Maybe, she replied. “Well,” he said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter. “Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his ass kicked.”- Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79867.html#ixzz246BHIR7l

Niall Ferguson, an economist that I've always respected has a story on the cover of Newsweek titled HIT THE ROAD BARACK. - Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope. Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization. Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not. In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful. - Tina Brown is one for overdramatized sensationalism. This must be their attempt to pretend that they are a politically balanced news organization. However the point remains, in virtually every economic metric, the president fails. This is the weakest "recovery" we have seen since the Great Depression.

I happen to be a big believer in relativity. Indexing the rate of growth or reduction of the military to GDP makes a lot of sense. I don't see how anyone can make a solid argument based on a static concept. That doesn't make sense, nor is it realistic

Who cares if you are tired about this argument? And no one is saying grant full amnesty, the argument is centered around inclusiveness and tone. They are a growing constituency, the vast majority are hard working people who have aspirations of becoming productive members in our society and there are large portions of the conservative base that alienate these folks. I just hope that the dynamic changes, if not, it is virtually guaranteed that the GOP will be the minority party.

I don't even know what we're arguing here?

You completely ignore the context, anyone who saw it, who has a minimal capacity of reason understands that within the context, he was pandering to largely African American crowd from Southern Virginia. He made the wallstreet comment, got very little applause, then he decided to make an off the cuff remark and pandered in Southern dialect to the crowd by making a racially charged statement. Now if you can't see that, then you've got issues.

Of course that's all you saw