Presidential debate...

[mrsleeve]

Your acting like the president has any control over the budget and the deficit in the 1st place.

Neither mitten or the 0 can do anything without a literal act of congress

[CorvallisBMW]

glad to see he's using our tax dollars wisely.

Ummm... what was his alternative? Fly in to a major airpot hours away, tie up hundreds of local police officers and spend 5x as much for a 100+ mile motorcade?

You're a bigger idiot than the Birthers if you think he's secretly a Muslim. I suggest you quickly put your tinfoil hat back on before Obama's drones read your mind and give you a remote lobotomy.

[CorvallisBMW]

Your acting like the president has any control over the budget and the deficit in the 1st place.

Neither mitten or the 0 can do anything without a literal act of congress

Quoted for later use ;)

[Kershaw]

but also further proving that obama lied and is still practicing his muslim faith.

honestly, there is more evidence to suggest obama is an atheist (growing up in a household surrounded by books of many different faiths) than to suggest he is islamic.

[rwh11385]

Any evidence to back up these claims?

Ummm... what was his alternative? Fly in to a major airpot hours away, tie up hundreds of local police officers and spend 5x as much for a 100+ mile motorcade?

You're a bigger idiot than the Birthers if you think he's secretly a Muslim. I suggest you quickly put your tinfoil hat back on before Obama's drones read your mind and give you a remote lobotomy.

Good work calling him on the BS. I guess the Muslim bit was about the explanation being Muslims can't travel with dogs because they are unclean but the Snopes piece references articles that show he does in fact travel with Bo when the airports can accommodate a plane that allows such.

^yep.

and sending their dog on a separate jet to wherever they go on vacation. not only spending additional money, but also further proving that obama lied and is still practicing his muslim faith.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/22/blog-posting/bloggers-claim-bo-flies-his-own-plane/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bo.asp

[rwh11385]

glad to see he's using our tax dollars wisely.

Actually, he very well could have saved money for the country. It depends on the crew costs and other expenses since there are double with two private flights instead of one massive but compare the fuel burn of one 747 with two G3's...

http://www.what2fly.com/operating_cost/boeing/747-200.php

Fuel Cost Per Hour: $23192.8
Average Cost Per Nauticle Mile: $44.88

http://www.what2fly.com/operating_cost/gulfstream/g_iii.php

Fuel Cost Per Hour: $2899.1
Average Cost Per Nauticle Mile: $6.32

[gwb72tii]

What on Earth is wrong with you? I guess I will have to make myself incredibly clear because you have difficulty understanding almost anything:

1. Deficits bad.
2. When Romney-Ryan make deficit go away?

don't know the specifics but its not rocket science
i believe the numbers a close to this
limit gov't spending to an increase of 2%/yr
assume 3% GDP growth
broaden the tax base a romney has proposed
and you get to a balanced budget in 7-8 yrs

but its more than that
at some point in the near future, if we do not address the deficit spending, the bond market will have a big bang moment that has happened to greece, portugal, ireland and now spain and italy. the bond market will start to back away from us gov't dent and interest rates will rise.
then shit really hits the fan

so the perception of the us govt getting serious about the spending is as important as making progress.

and again, only two guys, R&R, have said anything about it at all so by default they will get my vote.

and if you're young and you haven't paid attention to all this, we are at a moment in history where decisions made in this election will determine the level of pain we're all going to go thru to get it right, if the messiah is re-elected, the deficit will continue and the process will be delayed for another 2 years until the house and senate have veto proof majorities,
but by then the pain is going to get much bigger, especially if interest rates are on the way up.

[streetwaves]

don't know the specifics but its not rocket science
i believe the numbers a close to this
limit gov't spending to an increase of 2%/yr
assume 3% GDP growth
broaden the tax base a romney has proposed
and you get to a balanced budget in 7-8 yrs

but its more than that
at some point in the near future, if we do not address the deficit spending, the bond market will have a big bang moment that has happened to greece, portugal, ireland and now spain and italy. the bond market will start to back away from us gov't dent and interest rates will rise.
then shit really hits the fan

so the perception of the us govt getting serious about the spending is as important as making progress.

and again, only two guys, R&R, have said anything about it at all so by default they will get my vote.

and if you're young and you haven't paid attention to all this, we are at a moment in history where decisions made in this election will determine the level of pain we're all going to go thru to get it right, if the messiah is re-elected, the deficit will continue and the process will be delayed for another 2 years until the house and senate have veto proof majorities,
but by then the pain is going to get much bigger, especially if interest rates are on the way up.

Whose plan is the one you outlined? Because I'm fairly sure Ryan himself projected deficits until at least 2040 in his infamous budget proposal.

[smooth]

Whose plan is the one you outlined? Because I'm fairly sure Ryan himself projected deficits until at least 2040 in his infamous budget proposal.

doesn't matter because as soon as republicans are elected into office "deficits don't matter, GDP does" and all the armchair experts who voted for them will fall right in line behind the rhetoric

[gwb72tii]

doesn't matter because as soon as republicans are elected into office "deficits don't matter, GDP does" and all the armchair experts who voted for them will fall right in line behind the rhetoric

unfortunately smooth you're right, at least what has happened in the past

[CorvallisBMW]

unfortunately smooth you're right, at least what has happened in the past

So why are you voting for them if they're not going to do anything about it? You already said it's the single most important thing to you in this election, so why not vote for Virgil Goode?

[gwb72tii]

because it is a wasted vote.
there are two candidates that have a valid chance of winning. one is obama (which i believe you know how i fell about him) and the other is romney.
voting for a third party will not accomplish anything except to re-elect obama.
besides, my vote is wasted in WA state as it will carry obama by 10%, thanks to Seattle.

and if romney turns out to be bush budget wise, you'll hear me and others like sleeve criticize him too, like we did with bush

[VinniE30]

because it is a wasted vote.
there are two candidates that have a valid chance of winning. one is obama (which i believe you know how i fell about him) and the other is romney.
voting for a third party will not accomplish anything except to re-elect obama.
besides, my vote is wasted in WA state as it will carry obama by 10%, thanks to Seattle.

and if romney turns out to be bush budget wise, you'll hear me and others like sleeve criticize him too, like we did with bush

That logic is completely retarded. "I don't like this guy but i'm voting for him anyway because he has a better chance of winning" That's basically what you're saying.
By that same idiotic logic I should vote for obama then because according to the most credible predictions he's most likely to win.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson because I agree with his stance on almost everything. I can't even come anywhere close to saying the same for either obama or romney.
A vote for someone you don't agree with or someone who you think is "the lesser of two evils" is a wasted vote.

Please explain to me how a vote for someone less likely to win is a "wasted vote". If anything is a wasted vote it's a vote for obama/romney.

[BraveUlysses]

The real gem in that post was this tidbit of revisionist history:

and if romney turns out to be bush budget wise, you'll hear me and others like sleeve criticize him too, like we did with bush

[CorvallisBMW]

because it is a wasted vote.
there are two candidates that have a valid chance of winning. one is obama (which i believe you know how i fell about him) and the other is romney.
voting for a third party will not accomplish anything except to re-elect obama.
besides, my vote is wasted in WA state as it will carry obama by 10%, thanks to Seattle.

and if romney turns out to be bush budget wise, you'll hear me and others like sleeve criticize him too, like we did with bush

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day! Listen to yourself!

If Obama is guaranteed to carry WA why not vote for your preferred candidate? Your vote for Romney will not swing the state for Romney; so therefor if any vote is a true waste, it's a Romney vote. Voting for a 3rd party candidate will simply add to their national showing, and the more votes they get the more people will start paying attention.

You've got the whole thing totally back-asswards.