Wednesday October 10, 2012, 3:30 am
Only 9?????

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 3:59 am
These are the same recycle "Nine things" that just keep coming back.

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 4:37 am
to many to count!!!

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 5:43 am
Your choice now is pretty clear. You can either vote for the guy who got rid of bin Laden or vote for the guy who wants to get rid of Big Bird.

David Letterman

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:16 am
Thanks.

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 7:51 am
Why stop at just 9?

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 2:23 pm
... and this is why I don't think anyone should ever trust AlterNet.

1. As a CEO, Romney had a responsibility to investors in Bain Capital. When a large company, in a big industry, is willing to pay lots of money for help getting into a large market, the choice wasn't quite as clear as AlterNet assumes: He had a choice between helping that company get into Russia, where people were going to smoke either his client's products or someone else's, or betray his investors. There is no perfect choice, so there is no morally bankrupt alternative. It's interesting, given a comment in #9, that the firm exists to solely benefit investors (and not to serve Romney's personal ethical ventures) that this was counted against him.

2. Romney opposes sending for the sake of spending, as economic stimulus. Government-spending on worthwhile services, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Russia had a lot of trouble transitioning to a private economy, except for the Russian mob, which was already private. the better and smoother the transition, the more competition the mob got, and the better U.S. interests were served in other ways as well. Opposing stimulus-spending is not the same as opposing all government-spending, but apparently the author of the AlterNet article couldn't figure that out.

3. Who said he would make abortion illegal? He personally opposes it, but a major difference I have seen between moderate conservatives (and libertarians in particular), extreme social conservatives, and progressives is that progressives and extreme social conservatives are the only ones who seem to equate personal ethics with good policy. The idea that someone else might not appears to be foreign to the author of the article, and to AlterNet in general.

4. Did nobody notice that Holding was on the Olympic committee, or that he had been trying to get that land for 18 years by 2002? Something tells me the land-swap was in the works before Romney got involved, by over a decade.

5. I checked the tax-return. A huge part of his deduction was for contributions to charity. Romney most likely believes that charities to which he contributes make more efficient use of the funds than do federal welfare-programs. He gave back to the community, just not through the government. The 47% remarks was about voting-blocs, and the fact that he expected the majority of people who pay no, or negative, income-tax to vote Democrat. Unless folks over at AlterNet now think that it is an insult to say that some people are sure to vote Democrat, yet another part of the article doesn't add up.

6. Romney is a private citizen. He was not required to disclose any tax-returns. The government, on the other hand, is accountable to U.S. citizens. Also Fast & Furious was a "gun-tracking" program, without the "tracking" part. It was just a handover of guns, paid for by the federal government, to Mexican rebels and drug-cartels.

7. Looking at the context of Obama's "You didn't build that" line, it's actually worse. the president was misrepresented by Romney, but favourably. Credited people's economic success on the work of others. The relative importance can be debated, but it has been clear for a long time that society needs people to believe it is their own work that pays off. Otherwise, we get USSR-levels of parasitism and a collapse of the work-ethic. After the attack in Libya, Obama's administration began by condemning the video, publicly agreeing with the attackers' narrative by which they claimed justification. That's about as sympathetic towards them as one can get. Regarding the welfare-change, federal regulations should govern where federal dollars go. He handed control over to governors, who could chose between maintaining current requirements, or relaxing them and watching more federal welfare-dollar flow into their states. The incentives for governors to maintain the strength of the requirements are much, much weaker than for the federal government. On the other hand, Romney would probably have attacked Obama over excessive centralized control otherwise. Also, which Republicans, exactly are claiming that the "entitled culture" is primarily black? I actually check their media directly, not just Democrats' reports about their media, and I haven't seen it.

8. There is no indication that Romney expected the boos from promising to repeal ObamaCare. Let's play "what if?": If he's racist and playing to a racist base, then yes, he might have deliberately antagonized voters to get other voters. If not, then he might not have assumed that voters of one race would act differently from voters of another, so he would have given them the same speech ... exactly as he did. This is circular logic, not evidence of race-baiting.

9. A buyout firm never benefits directly from bankrupting a company. That's like buying a house and burning it down. The only way to benefit, that I could imagine, is by loading debt that offsets costs which would be paid by another holding, benefiting that other holding, into a limited-liability holding, which would then go bankrupt and default. Nobody has ever suggested that Bain did that. The consulting-fees could still be paid so the loss wouldn't be total, but the buyout-firm always benefits a whole lot more from successes than failures. I am not surprised that it supported outsourcing to outside the U.S. Compliance-costs here are prohibitive, and U.S. corporate tax-rate for locally-owned firms large enough to outsource overseas (top tax-bracket) is among the world's highest. (The only higher ones I could find were in Syria, Guyana, and Bangladesh.)

I'm sure Romney has done many things of which he should not be proud, but if we're going to criticize him, we should at least go after him with accurate and indisputable claims.

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 4:38 pm
All of these threads over the past several days are pure desperation threads. The polls show that Romney is leading and beating Obama at every turn. The debate proved how incompetent Obama is especially without his teleprompter. Obama now states that he was "being too nice." And this is why he did poorly in the debate. Say what you want but what this tells me is that Obama is a poor loser and an excuse maker. He can't run on his failed four years so the liberals are out here stumping for an incompetent president who never should've been elected in the first place. Obama makes Jimmy Carter look good that's how bad he is.

Put up all the anti-Romney threads you want but the bottom line is that the American people will speak in less than a month. This election won't be won here on Care 2. The American people will vote and they will decide if Obama should stay or go. From where I sit, I believe they are making great strides towards electing Romney. Romney outclasses Obama and has far more experience in leading.

Obama isn't qualified to run a small company much less a country and it shows. Time to exit left, Obama.

Wednesday October 10, 2012, 10:46 pm
I just watched video footage of several instances where Mitt answered questions in front of an audience and gave them the answers they wanted to hear --only to have his campaign committee issue a correction shortly thereafter. I'm not talking about once or twice; it's habitual! The crowd hears what they want to hear, and Mitt gets away with it because a correction was made.

Saying that a liar outclasses President Obama is rich (as in "highly amusing," not as in Mitt's financial status thanks in part to his foreign bank accounts). A liar's behavior has already been described above.

I found it very interesting to learn that the mother of Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who died in Libya while defending the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is outraged that Mitt is using her son's death to further his campaign and has demanded that he stop.

"On Wednesday, Doherty’s mother, Barbara Doherty, told Boston television station WHDH that she wanted Romney to stop citing her son.

“I don’t trust Romney. He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” Barbara Doherty said."

Romney revealed this week that he had met the former soldier who was killed last month in the Libyan terror attacks. A close friend of the young man claims that he had met Mitt and didn't like him. It seems that Mitt had engaged in several conversations with him at a Christmas party --and with each new encounter, Mitt failed to remember that he had already spoken to him. To hear his friend's account of Glen Doherty's and Mitt Romney's interaction at that Christmas party --which Mitt is using to further his political agenda-- please click on the follow link:

GLEN DOHERTY

In the event that my link doesn't work, here's the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e8oMH5DbL9Y#!

Friday October 12, 2012, 7:27 am
BRAVO Stephen and Diane.

Friday October 12, 2012, 7:29 am
If you just do a little research you will find that Romney is not only goods to his family and friends but he has done many great things for complete strangfers. Of course if you that doesn't fit your agenda why would you seek the truth right?