If the red diaper baby is given 4 more yrs., there will be no more America. Simple as that.

Race card = Liberal get-out-of-the-argument free card.

What changes from the time a baby is in the womb to the time she is born that makes it wrong 2 kill her?

Chris Matthews is the dumbest person that ever lived. Well, maybe number two now that I think of it.

rod03801: Libs should see the 2016Obama movie but they won't. Even if they do, they are so married to their ideology they will deliberately ignore what's in front of them.

Just like they ignore Obama's call for all of us to be our "brother's keeper" all the while Obama's real brother lives in poverty (and remember, Obama is a mufti-millionaire). Even the news media is silent on this story because they can't stand to report the news if it makes Obama look bad.

But they trip over themselves reporting on Romney's HS prank. But little is known of Obama's past because the libs hide it. When they find out, they suppress the stories.

rod03801: I really don't care about some of the mistakes Bush made, because he did the one thing I believed was important during those eight years. Now the focus should be on the economy. What the president said about the economy and what he would do about it got people excited, but here it is four years later and he is singing the same old tune. And the pupose for all of the distractions and side issues is for the Dems to have something to talk about other than what has actually been done. Which is less than nothing, so it's actually nothing to brag about. They know it and we know it, but you won't hear any of them admit it. This board reflects what is going on everywhere else, so we will just have to roll with it until after the election.

Don't forget, after the election the big news will be how the republicans stole the election. The other downside to winning will be the attacks on republican leaders children. They were all over the Bush kids for eight solid years, and even went after Sarah Palins kids even though she was only running for vice president. The left will always tell you who they are afraid of when they go looking for stories about someones children. I almost forgot that Obama had kids, because apparently the mainstream news media think his kids are a big whopping snore... yeah, that must be it.

The Col: If conservatives are NOT elected, our country will be a miserable mess like parts of Europe, within those 10 years. We are close to the breaking point!

I think you may be thinking more of the social aspect of things, which I suppose I can at least understand a little. Except that I don't believe the federal government should be involved in most of those social aspects at all. (Libs and conservatives will blast me for that. Oh well)

Federal government : smaller the better. Protect our borders and our citizens should be the biggest part of what it does. If it weren't SO involved in everything else, it wouldn't need to confiscate so much of my hard earned money.
And no, I'm NO Mitt Romney with tons of it either. If any thing, I'm barely middle class. But it's those "upper class" people that spend that money and keep us all in jobs. If they and all of us are not allowed to live the "American Dream" where working hard results in success, then why bother working hard. It just breeds mediocrity. It sickens me.
I don't get why this isn't logical to libs and the silly "occupy whatevers"

Of course it's silly to even go 'round n 'round about it all. None of us are going to convince the others that what they believe is wrong.

It's why I tend to sit back and read. I'm a HORRIBLE "debater"

(V): "McDonald's 4 Year Old Cheeseburger"

America's Four Year Old Diet

(V): re :" The fringe is going to get smaller and smaller as people become more well informed and get bored with the constant "they are evil/of the devil" lines. Same with the far left in the USA."

The "loony left" drive me up a wall, but are basically harmless.The loony right" on the other hand will not bow out gracefully, militia groups are on a steep rise in the USA ,just wait till they decide to "take back" their country

The Col: The coalition at the moment has seen the Liberal party in power for the first time in decades. But, in having to compromise with the Conservatives they have lost many voters. It was the one major party that has remained relatively clean regarding recent MP scandals. But supporters are not happy over being in bed with 'the devil'. It wouldn't have made much difference if they had sided with Labour as they have lost confidence within the voter pool.

Certain smaller parties have started getting support, but we are lucky that they are mainly moderates. Such as our extreme factions (eg BNP) will never get hold. We associate them too much with the Nazi's, and we as a nation would never support such fanatics. Especially with the likes of the National Front still well remembered.

"I can understand the awkward juggling act the Republicans are attempting to a certain degree.With population trends as they are, they will be unelectable in another 10 years or less, so they are trying to cater to both the loony tunes fringe and the center just to survive."

For how long? Those in the Republican party must realise that unless they cannot stop the inevitable change in population demographics. The fringe is going to get smaller and smaller as people become more well informed and get bored with the constant "they are evil/of the devil" lines. Same with the far left in the USA.

I think they should hold special games where both fringes get to fight it out in sumo suits.. It'd get more viewers then WWE/WWF/WCW/etc purely based on the comedy aspect.

(V): I can understand the awkward juggling act the Republicans are attempting to a certain degree.With population trends as they are, they will be unelectable in another 10 years or less, so they are trying to cater to both the loony tunes fringe and the center just to survive.The problem is long time Republicans and centerists are shaking their heads in dismay.I see a 3rd party emerging for the birther/tea party factions, but it will only make it worse by splitting the right wing vote, much like our Liberal party has lost it's way by losing voters to the NDP.Our Progressive Conservative party was in that same position till it joined the (more conservative) Reform party.Many Liberals in Canada now see their only chance at regaining power is by joining our NDP (labour party)If it happens, our Conservative Party is probably in big trouble in regards to being elected.

rod03801: And the movie is doing better than expected. Obama never got vetted and it's finally happening. Most liberals prefer to keep their heads in the sand or stuck ......well, you know what that is.

The Col: Same with "New Labour".. It's moved itself away somewhat from it's union roots in order to be acceptable by the business class.

Übergeek 바둑이: re" Of course, if we look at Democrat presidents, we will find actions which would contradict their "liberal" ideology."

That is correct.As the Republicans keep moving further and further right,the center also has moved further right. The irony of Reagan reaching heroic stature in the Republican party, is the fact niether he nor Nixon would be considered conservative enough to even make it past the primaries.In fact , if Nixon proposed the Environmental Protection Agency , he would have been looked upon as a Ron Paul level radical.

Artful Dodger: I've been wanting to see this movie. I didn't see it coming locally though. However, I just looked, and it is now playing locally. I'm going to try and see it.

Ive listened to a couple interviews Sean Hannity had with the guy behind the movie. Sounds interesting, and disturbing.

(V): Wo dude! That's almost exactly what someone was somewhere else that said the same thing!

Cool! So like, can you like tell me where the secret location is, 'cause like you know, I don't know where that is, man. Shoot, half the time I don't know where my head is at, man... what did you say?

The Col:

> Aside from Watergate , he was a pretty good President IMO. I would love to hear his thoughts of the current Republican party

I heard an interesting comment in the radio today. A political commentator quoted George H.W. Bush as saying that with the current ideological current in the Republican Party it would have been impossible for himself (Bush) or Ronald Reagan to be nominated for the Republican ticket. The reason is that the Republican Party has become radicalized to the right to such an extent that more "moderate" vies such as those of Republican presidents of the past would have been unacceptable to the Party caucuses.

I see Mitt Romney as a sort of compromise. On the one hand he represents the entrenched, powerful, traditional Republicans of the Reagan era. However, he also has to satisfy the extreme right wing views of the Tea Party and the likes of Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is stuck in between and the potential nomination of Ron Paul as VP is a symptom of that.

When I said that Romney reminds me of Nixon, it is because of certain inflexions of speech and his way of projecting himself politically. However, Mitt Romney is in many ways a polar opposite of Nixon.

Reading a little about Nixon, it is obvious that he would be labelled a "liberal" by today's Republicans. Consider these snippets of his career as a president:

"After he won reelection, Nixon found inflation returning. He reimposed price controls in June 1973. The price controls became unpopular with the public and businesspeople, who saw powerful labor unions as preferable to the price board bureaucracy."

Obviously the Price Control Board was an example of "big government".

"Nixon was a late convert to the conservation movement. Environmental policy had not been a significant issue in the 1968 election; the candidates were rarely asked for their views on the subject. He saw that the first Earth Day in April 1970 presaged a wave of voter interest on the subject, and sought to use that to his benefit; in June he announced the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

Nixon created the EPA, which is now seen as an "enemy" by those who call for indescriminate drilling withint the USA.

"In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts proposed a plan for universal federally run health insurance, partly motivated by dramatic rises in public and private health care expenditures. In response, Nixon proposed a health care plan which would provide insurance for low-income families, and require that all employees be provided with health care. As this still would have left some forty million people uncovered, Kennedy and the other Democrats declined to support it, and the measure failed, though a Nixon proposal for increased use of health maintenance organizations passed Congress in 1973."

Is it just me or did Nixon propose something akin to Obamacare?

Well, the true right wing nature of Nixon was more evident in his foreign policy in Asia, Africa and Latin America where he supported fascist dictators in an effort to fight Communism. It as the pursuit of fascist imperialist foregin policy that identifies Nixon as a right winger, otherwise his domestic poilicy was quite liberal in nature.

As for Ronald Reagan, it is interesting that he was divorced in 1948, leaving Janet Wyman and their to children, then remarrying in 1949 to Nancy Reagan (nee Davis) with who he had to children. In today's environment he would probably have failed to attract many voters because of his divorce, although some candiadates have been divorced and remarried.

Regan is known for lowering taxes, particularly for the higher income brackets of American society; however, we have the following:

"Conversely, Congress passed and Reagan signed into law tax increases of some nature in every year from 1981 to 1987 to continue funding such government programs as Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Social Security, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA). Despite the fact that TEFRA was the "largest peacetime tax increase in American history", Reagan is better known for his tax cuts and lower-taxes philosophy."

If a candidate had proposed those tax increases to offset tax cuts, he would be labelled a liberal.

Of course, if we look at Democrat presidents, we will find actions which would contradict their "liberal" ideology. The reason is that presidents work within the limitations of the bipartisan system.

Mr. Scam Man ~ Anti Obama Song: http://youtu.be/tE0M9R1YXH0 via @youtube

Are the republicans worried about driving away undecided voters? Of course they are, just like McDonalds is worried about driving away loyal Burger King customers.

If you were to poll those undecided voters and ask them questions to see which way they lean, instead of asking point blank who they would vote for, I'll bet the overwhelming majority could be found leaning towards Democrat candidate(s).

Besides, even if an undecided is truely sitting on the fence and isn't leaning either way, then what's the point of trying to influence them? How do you convince an undecided to change their mind if they haven't yet made up their mind?

US Republicans are to open their national convention as they prepare to formally nominate Mitt Romney as Barack Obama's White House challenger.

But Monday's events in Tampa, Florida have all been cancelled amid concern over the path of Tropical Storm Isaac. The storm will miss Tampa, but is set to hit the Gulf coast while the rejigged convention is in full swing.

Concern remains that the storm could overshadow key speeches by Mr Romney and running mate Paul Ryan.

The highly organised convention had been meticulously planned to highlight the personal story of Mr Romney, a former business star and governor of Massachusetts.

But Monday's events will be limited to a symbolic opening and an immediate adjournment, with the evening agenda compressed on the following three nights.

Mr Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman known for his work on Republican budget plans, will face by far his biggest national exposure when he takes to the stage on Wednesday night.

But he could make his speech against a backdrop of images of high winds and storm surges lashing the Gulf coast virtually seven years to the day since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: "The egomaniac thinks we're talking about him!"

I didn't see that one coming. My mentalist abilities are failing me today.

Iamon lyme: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/review_2016_obamas_america.html

Artful Dodger: "We're better off if he stays quiet."

Maybe you're right. He's too cagey to fall into another trap.

"ooo ooo I'll post two comments about Obama for every one you post about Mitt"...

Iamon lyme: The egomaniac thinks we're talking about him!

ooooooo I am so in demand!!

Iamon lyme: We're better off if he stays quiet.

Artful Dodger: "I'll be waiting for one predictable response in particular... I'll let you know when I see it."

I should have said "...if I see it." I may have tipped my hand by mentioning it. Darn!

The Col: He did good when it came to the arms limitations initiative. Some things looking at his foreign policies he was pretty good. Others.. iffy.

mckinley: "Book of Job chapters 38-42."

Not sure what your point is, but if it's what I think it might be then I could say the same about anyone else here. What made you think of those chapters?

mckinley: "NKJV is easier to read."

I have that version. I'll look at the chapters you suggested. Hopefully I'll know what your point is after reading, but I may have to come back to ask anyway.

(V): Aside from Watergate , he was a pretty good President IMO. I would love to hear his thoughts of the current Republican party

Samsung has sent a memo to staff in the wake of losing a court battle with Apple hitting out at what it calls abuse of patent law.

On Friday, a US court ordered Samsung to pay $1.05bn (£665m) in damages to Apple for infringing its patents. Shares in Samsung fell 7% in Seoul in Monday trading, their biggest one-day fall in seven years, as a result. Samsung said there had yet to be a company that had succeeded by relying on the "outright abuse of patent law". The case is one of the most significant rulings in a global intellectual property battle.

Samsung said it would be appealing against the verdict.

Seems the courts do think you can have new ideas, or as they tend to label it... intellectual property.
But what do judges know... they are only human.

Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney has accused his rival President Barack Obama of
running a campaign built on "anger and divisiveness".

Mr Romney said the Democratic campaign had hit a "new low" by
trying to link him to controversial views on rape recently voiced by
another Republican.

"anger and divisiveness".... Sounds like some people here!!

The Col: Nixon who lied and cheated.... who missed being tried while being President by resignation is better than Romney.

...Interesting thought!!

This may or may not have anything to do with politics (I happen to think it does) but have you heard of this theory about where the universe came from? It basically says first there was nothing, then the nothing spontaneously turned into two separate but equal realities. The two realities are kept separate, because if they came together they would cancel each other out and then we'd be back to nothing again. One has a positive value and other negative, and are either kept apart by some means that wasn't explained, or for the time being are simply separated with no force holding them apart.

I am not making this up. I listened to Stephen Hawking talk about it. It sounds like how a credit card company operates. They are able to give you money (the positive value) because they also create a negative value to ballance it with. In other words, you get free money in exchange for you owing them that money (plus interest and other charges).

The reason I see politics written all over this theory is because the reasoning sounds familiar. First, there's something from nothing. And the word spontaneous is misleading, making you think it just happened for no reason. Or without a cause. The reason it's misleading is because "spontaneous" doesn't mean there was no force acting on it, 'spontaneous' means the force acting on it came from within instead of outside the system. In other words, the reasoning is flawed because in a state of nothingness there would be no force present (internal or external) to act at all. There is nothing there to cause nothing to become something.

The reason I think this is significant is because if a brilliant mind like Hawking's can overlook a glaring error such as this, what does that say about the average Joe who is being treated daily with political messages that make no sense?

It's not just America that has been dumbed down. Gore and Obama have both won Nobel prizes for basically doing nothing but spout off about things they know nothing about.

Iamon lyme: ok ;)

Artful Dodger: I'll be waiting for one predictable response in particular... I'll let you know when I see it.

The "SIN" tactic is real. Liberals love to use it. Shift the subject, Ignore the facts, and Name call

Iamon lyme: Often the abortionist crowd recycles old worn out arguments when they have nothing of substance to say. They even use all caps as if that makes their points more sound. Childish.

Artful Dodger: "You can't legislate morality"

It's bizzare. The same people who tell me morality is an outdated concept (because it's grounded in religion) will then try taking the moral high ground for preaching their own brand of morality. If right and wrong are outdated concepts, then how can anything I do or say be wrong?

As you can imagine, I wasn't just a bad atheist... I was also a very confused one.

Iamon lyme: It's a sick argument. Evil even.

Artful Dodger: "a person that describes his/her unborn child as a parasite"

The abuse is usually mental, although it can become physical. This is no joke. What a person thinks of children, especially their own children, figures prominently in how they treat those children.

The person using this kind of language (calling an unborn child a parasite) usually fancies himself a science minded person, and is often surprised or disappointed that not everyone shares his fantasy. He doesn't mean to offend anyone, his purpose is to get people to think of him as being objective and accurate. Never occurs to him that people have their own opinions about objectivity and accuracy. I've even listened to (lectured by) some who talk about boundaries, but then they'll act as though they don't seem to know where those boundaries are. And when it comes to other peoples children... well, let's just say they would be better off concentrating on their money.