Supreme Court is Conservative and has been for some time and Roe vs Wade is still there. To argue any other is intellectual dishonesty. It is ironic because the "Wade" in Roe v Wade is actually anti abortion now that she has seen what it has become. For those pro abortion people, you really need to do a little fact finding before you continue your blind support for the genocide that is happening. A vast vast majority of abortion is done for "I don't want a baby now" reasons. Not for the main argument of rape or mothers health. Numbers I have seen is near 99% is not health related. You also need to look into how much of planned parenthood revenue is abortion driven and the way they manipulate women and young women into having abortions. They actually have scripts they go through to help push them the abortion direction. Not saying abortion should be absolute taken away but do some research before offering your undying support for such a tragedy.

The law should not be stricken down, but it needs to be reigned in.

Good one Wes and I get the point. But, as you know, people will evolve (Obama term) along the way. Mitt too, after he wins, will go more middle ground (what does he say now? :) ) and turn a blind eye to it to some extent. It is a necessary evil and it has it's uses (abortion) and it has been and is being abused. I do not think it should be used, as a matter of practice, and I should not pay for someone to be promiscuous. The real cure for unwanted pregnancies is abstinence.

The problem is he evolves weekly, daily, you know etch-a-sketch. Wasn't it 6 months ago that he was "severely conservative".

What I've seen of Mitt is that he will say anything to anyone at anytime to try and get the vote. As Jon Huntsman so accurately described Mitt, he is a "perfectly lubricated weather vane"

LOL Packing Bag's

Name one thing that's better now than when Obama took office.Besides foreign countries bank accounts,Former bank CEO's bank accounts,China's interest income,Other countries job growth,or Obama's enjoyment of his numerous vacations.Oh i forgot oil company profits!!!!

That picture is of course delusional fantasy. Not that they'll be moving out but that Obama will actually be working.

I'll name 6 things that are better...

1) The rate of increase of unemployment.
2) The level of unemployment.
3) The stock market.
4) Deficit spending is slightly lower.
5) The number of US soldiers in Iraq.
6) OBL is dead. So if we ever decide to end the crap in Afghanistan the mission has been over for a while.

I have much respect for your posts John, however, I am not sure I believe everything on your list. I think #2 is where my 15 y.o. wondered who was lying during the debates. I mean it depends if you include who has stopped looking for work. Right? I cannot argue with many of your other things, but some were destined to occur. #5 and #6. Could #3 really go any lower? Is it not possible that we are on the natural hill after a valley?

Yeah. 5MM people out of the job market and 8.6MM working part time for economic reasons. Employment is really good! Mean while all the new regulations and policies that we have yet to know the impact of have most business owners sitting on their hands. Its called uncertainty and it brings things to a standstill.

1 and 2 are wrong for stated reasons. Those that stopped looking and part timers. 3 is true because the stock market is not just American anymore. Corporations make their money offshore because the laws are made to make them offshore. Just because they are listed on the American Stock Exchange does not mean they are making their money in the US. 4 is a reach at very best. 5 Thank goodness Bush signed that agreement to move the troops out. 6 agree, good thing the military has been putting out its feelers for intel for the last decade

I can't believe obama hasn't gotten us out of Afghanistan. He should.

They won't Paul. Both sides voted for both wars. They saw something on the intel but one side chose to lie about their vote. We are still there for a reason. I don't really care for it, but we are there.

"Supreme Court is Conservative and has been for some time and Roe vs Wade is still there."
Hanging by a thread! 5-4, This is not Romneys call, he will appoint a judge who is a conservative, bought with the Right wingnuts who want to end abortion. If they really cared about abortion they would be over in China fighting for the unborn childs rights over there because I'm sure they have a lot more abortions than US.
Also, Romney, who knows Nothing about war, will get us involved in one!

As opposed to Obama who "knows Nothing about war" that has kept us in one?

If Roe vs. Roe were overturned, which I do not see happening, that would mean that states would then decide on allowing abortion. To me, Romney wants states to decide on issues such as these, not the Federal Gov.

unless "such as these" includes two dudes getting married, in which case it's a federal issue?

Actually Romney/Ryan and the republican platform officially want an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution; and the language does not make exceptions for rape or life of the mother (of course Rep. Joe Walsh has helpfully pointed out that it's impossible to die from childbirth). If you think they are about states' rights, think again.

At least Obama did not want to get in the war he inherited.

Hands down the most logical post I have read in this thread.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nY0M7IdNl7U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for posting Wes, now I know why Romney is getting So many votes!

There are still lots of unanswered questions about Benghazi. Did the six CIA Agents act against orders. Why wasn't the President in the situation room during the attact, this is American soil. Why didn't they deploy a militay rapid response team (Commanders in-extremists) instead of a makeshift team of former Seals on another mission. Why was the President prepping for his trip to Vegas while the last Americans were not out of Libya. Why did the press secretary, the Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of State all lie for 24 days after the murders. Was it to hide until after the foreign policy debate. Why did a CIA group with Doherty have to hire a charter a plane from Tripoli to save the Americans seven hours later. Did the President refuse to give them aid. He needs to stand up and tell us why. this is a cover up! tis is an American embarrassment.

So Wes if Obama loses are you going to help them "burn this mutha f****** down" like your liberal friends?

John, could you explain #4-deficit spending slightly lower?

Just google for a graph of deficit spending by year. The highest was the first year Obama was in office (2009). That budget was established when Bush was President. It's hard to fathom a President elected in a serious recession slashing the budget when his public mandate was to stabilize the economy and turn around the rate of job loss.

Here's one...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpre...nder-obama.jpg

Oh and BTW... wrt job numbers I'm not going to cherry pick the dept of labor vs people's common beliefs. The numbers are what they are now and in the past. I'm just stating the facts as they are officially presented.

What's really embarrassing is the idea that people will be effected by this in the election. 4500 American's dead in mismanaged/misguided wars and this is what we choose to make an issue? It's an insult to our soldiers to so grossly assign significance to something so trivial for political purposes.

What is embarrassing John is a top earner like you in a low tax state supporting the lie that demorats did not support the war and the fact that they completely supported Afganistan.

"What is embarrassing John is a top earner like you in a low tax state supporting the lie that demorats did not support the war and the fact that they completely supported Afganistan."
yah, Democrats supported the war because they had WMD, another republican LIE! After two months of war it was apparent there were NO weapons of mass destruction and Democrats jumped ship, Good! The Retardigans stayed the course thinking that war helps the economy.
How many times are we going to beat this dead horse!
Obama will NOT get us in a war!
Romney will lead us to war!

who spends the money?
congress does

look at spending when dems were in control during Bush's last 2 years until when the repubs took over


hmmmmmm

why on God's green Earth does anybody think that Obama can balance the budget and reduce the debt?
there is nothing that he has done that would indicate that he is capable of either


why do you guys think that Romney will get us in a war?
Romney wants a strong military....read deterrent
Obama wants a weak military.....read opportunity for our enemies/less respect

thanks John, thats exactly what I was asking. Sad that it is still over 1 trillion every year, and if re elected, another 1 trillion each year is planned.

Wow Jo you sound real angry. Congress voted to go to war in Iraq, they all had the same intelligence from the CIA, Britain, Israel, and a plethora of other resources. Those are the facts. You can argue all day long that our intelligence was wrong and that "nation building" is a waste of our men and womens lives, money, and time. In fact, I will stand next to you and argue that with you, but congress voted to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.

soon

Joe yah, Democrats supported the war because they had WMD, another republican LIE! After two months of war it was apparent there were NO weapons of mass destruction and Democrats jumped ship. You should read american sniper then say that. Cris talks about that in his book,

You still want to stand by those retarded positions Jo and Shawn?

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *

Shawn. I may have misread you. I thought you were agreeing with Jo. LOL

Delta you have the retarded republican view, the democrats backed the war for humanitarian purposes only, the stupid republicans thought it would stimulate the economy, Dumbasses!

John, since Obama has been in office -66,000 jobs have been created. Also, while getting OBL was an accomplishment, look at what happened to the man who helped bring OBL to justice. "Dr Shakil has been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment and a fine of 320,000 Pakistani rupees [Dh12,800]," said Mohammed Nasir, a government official in Peshawar, where the jail term will be served.
Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...#ixzz2BPKpyKMU In addition, a sophisticated liberal should never turn down a chance to donate 5 million dollars to a charity, especially if it came from Donald Trump.

When your a douche bag like Donald Trump he ought to give 5 million regardless.

You must be one of those angry south pole elves.....

Since when is war a humanitarian effort? Again, democrats can't deal with numbers and facts. Completely emotional answers. Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.

Ron, aren't most (all?) of those lost jobs in the public sector (mostly state and local government?)? I'd think that that's something that some folks would actually be happy about. Seems kinda silly to complain about fewer government employees, doesn't it?

Deltaloser, make your own sandwich, BITCH!

Good point, Shawndoggy, my guess would be that would depend on the individual state. For example, in Washington, "The private sector shed 1,400 jobs, while the public sector added 300 jobs, for a net decline of 1,100 jobs in August, according to the state Employment Security Department." http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...saugust20.html

Aren't we an angry little man. Hold the mayo.....

Just gotta keep this thread going four more years...

As it stands, with Obama projected to win- the next four years will have changes in:
Immigration
Marriage equality

As Chris Christie solidifies his presidential run plan, who will be the next dem contender?

Hillary.

I think Christie is a great option. Biden and Hillary can slug it out for the geezer slot.

I think G needs someone to hold him right now. I guess you'll have to wait four more years for your next "I can't wait to vote Obama out" thread.

I'm not going to lie and say I'm not bummed. As soon as the news had called it I was pretty much over it. I had my hopes that people would vote in Romney but its pretty much a no brainer that their are far more stupid people on this earth infact the stupid people are breeding at record numbers. So I guess I was fooling my self that common sence would rule. Obama wins America Looses

Loose is sometimes better than tight.

stupid people are breeding... their... sence... looses...

Wes: I guess I will take a page from your book and Just post links, This pretty much sum's up my feelings on the Barry and the current admin.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
William J. H. Boetcker, 1916

WOW written in 1916 But I guess with CHANGE and HOPE you can re write history.

You cannot reap wisdom by sowing cliche.
John F Anderson 2012

Get it, Delta loser, you lost last night but you probably missed that! hahaha

Why am I losing Jo jackass. I have a government job and so does my wife. It actually helps me. I did not lose. I won. The more jobs they can drive off shore and out of the state, the further my dollar will go. You see. Some people can actually see truth and vote for what is right. America lost. Facts are not your strong suit. Does not matter how mad you get. Fact - democrats are the richest people in the country. They are the richest in congress. Healthcare will come off your back. What until you have to start paying for it. Nice little thing. My wife is in a Union and they are kind of exempt. Nice huh? I am not one of the boogey man people you liberals like to demonize. I don't even come close to that salary but I know truth when I see it. I feel fine. Democrats can help pay for my kids college and their healthcare until they are 26. You can also pay for the illegals that allow me to have fresh fruit and veggies all year round. They just raise my salary to the standard norm for the area anyway. No big deal on that either. If you look at the two biggest people on this post that are democrats. Well they are actually very high wage earners. Kind of points to the democrats are rich montra doesn't it? Trust me, I am not mad about me personally, I am just sad for people like you. So stupid that you can not see the country being stolen away day by day by the people you vote for. People that don't understand that the middle class is the backbone of the country only to have people like you that vote only for what they can get out of the system. People who love to chant slogans about being pro abortion but can not even deal with the facts of it. Support the people who are sucking your jobs away in the name of the UN. Vote with the people in the most murderous places on earth like all the democrat held cities. Yep. I am not pissed. I don't have to be or think like you. I will never be a loser like you.

Delta, Jackass??? I'm not democratic, hahaha, You sound very, very, angry! (like you LOST) hahaha, So, you LIVE off the government, but then Preach how we should not have government handouts, how Ironic! (and funny)

It's sad that we can't have a political discussion with out it getting personal. Those of you that personally attack you know who you are. The people that pound your chest and proclaim superior wisdom. why don't you use that wisdom it to articulate your point with out the personal attacks. I bet even the people that I disagree with the most in these political threads, I still have respect for and bet if we were talking about boats we would all find common ground.

True, but some with their use of derogatory terms and name calling; you just have to place on your mental ignore list.

Oh my god, honestly, am I reading this correctly? If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, than I don't know what is.

And besides, have you read any of the discussions talking about the G23 or the XStar? I think you would find more common ground between liberals and conservatives than between those two camps.

Jo, You don't know how to read. I never preached about handouts. I preach about democrats trying to move your money offshore through regulations, support for illegal aliens, health care laws that will not lower costs. When I do those political tests I always end up pretty much dead in the middle just ever so slight to the left. Go figure. It takes two wings to fly but one wing wants to fly out of the country. I also realize you can not keep government working if all your workers are government workers. It is simple economics. Did not say you can't have government workers, you have to have sensible ratio. Not mad. Just disappointed we have idiots who are not smart enough to understand basic economics and cause and effect. Like I said, I have courage to vote against what is supposed to be my best interest in the name of the country. Unfortunately you can not.

Ring Ring - Hey Pot, It's kettle - just calling to say hi..This is an ridiculous discussion.

The Morning After the Election Nov 7th this is what the Statue of Liberty looked like

Five days after the election, November 11, 2012, the Electoral College looked like this:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/12/azejy5uv.jpg

For good measures...
6 days after the election, it still looks like this:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/12/azejy5uv.jpg