Unemployment is down to 7.8%.

114,000 jobs added.

- - - - -

Excellent news!  I wonder how many Republicans are happy about it?  Or how they will try to brush it away? 

Same MO every time, so I've got my popcorn ready.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Unemployment is down to 7.8%.

 

114,000 jobs added.

 

- - - - -

 

Excellent news!  I wonder how many Republicans are happy about it?  Or how they will try to brush it away? 

 

Same MO every time, so I've got my popcorn ready.

You can eat all the popcorn you like, but you should be careful about popping the champagne corks just yet.

While the unemployment rate decline is good news it is, well... let's see what one analyst said:

Even Jack Welch doesn't believe them. And it looks like most of the jobs created were part-time (and going to people who actually want full-time jobs.)

And CNN:

And their chart isn't very encouraging either:

So partially positive, partially negative, partially confusing. Overall still looking like we're heading into another recession. And, it only took 46 months under Obama's policies to return unemployment to the level it was when he took office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Unemployment is down to 7.8%.

 

114,000 jobs added.

 

Desperate tactics by the admin, since they are now completely in panic mode after the emperor has been shown to have no clothes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Unemployment is down to 7.8%.

 

114,000 jobs added.

 

- - - - -

 

Excellent news!  I wonder how many Republicans are happy about it?  Or how they will try to brush it away? 

 

Same MO every time, so I've got my popcorn ready.

 

 

I would be happy about it if it was real.  It's not.  And even if it was, it's not enough.   The number doesn't make any sense.  114,000 jobs is not enough to drop unemployment by .3%.  Any analyst worth his salt will tell you that.  It takes consistent 150,000-160,000 jobs/month to lower unemployment.  Anything less just doesn't keep up with population growth.  Looking at the data, it looks as if they manipulated the workforce participation rate. 

A more detailed explanation...

Considering Mitch McConnell said the day after the 2008 election that Republicans number one objective is too see Obama get defeated in 2012, it is not surprise the economy is in shambles. Essentially to see Obama defeated, Republicans were willing to flush the Country down the drain. Further, they have not made that a secret. They have went on record many times saying it.

Like at no time in our Country's history has the Congress been unable to pass legislation. Moreover, people forget President Bush held the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. At the end of his term, the economy collapsed because of largely Republican policies. If regular people want things to get better, Obama needs to win so that the Republicans no longer have the objective of seeing Obama as a one term President. Perhaps then the business of fixing the economy will be addressed.

People should also remember that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were passed in the name of creating jobs. Trickle down economics is what they call it. However, the people the tax cuts helped are already making tons of money. The tax breaks weren't needed to create jobs, and the extra money wasn't used to create jobs. Romney's plan is to give relieve to the rich in a different way because the US tax structure is already the lowest it has been in the last hundred years. Instead, he will hand out billions in un asked for military contracts to his rich buddies that will be paid for in further cuts to eduction, social security, and medicare. He will further give monetary relief to his rich buddies by defunding government organizations like the EPA that are used to protect the public from corporate malfeasance. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Well at what point and at what level of control does someone finally become responsible? Obama's mantra for the entire campaign has been "It is Bush's fault" even after he has nearly completed his first full term. The government spends one out of every four dollars in the economy. The stimulus was twice as large as the entire networth and economic contribution of Apple.

 

When does the leader become responsible for his leadership? If a CEO of a company aka the leader doesn't warn on the company, blames the prior CEO and the company is still not hitting projections made BY the company four years later, shouldn't he be gone?

 

We talk about control, it isnt' as if the projections were THRUST onto Obama. They were his projections. They contained a range and allowed for a margin of error. They were widely off.

 

But that guy Mitt Romney, he's the liar. Obama's just the guy that borrowed $5 trillion dollars and watched 80% of the green companies he gave money to go belly up. He isn't responsible at all for any of this though.

Look when the leader of the Republican Party the day after the 2008 election tells people the Republican Party's number one objective is to see Obama as a one term President, you really should question the Party's ethics. When Obama came into Office our economy just had the biggest melt down ever. Bush started the big bank bail out and the bail out of the auto companies. Shouldn't the number one goal be to work together to fix the horrible damage done to the economy after 8 years of President Bush?

The reality is Republicans like with no other President before have done everything in their power to undermine the President including throwing the Country's economy in the toilet to accomplish that goal. A President doesn't have the power to pass laws. So if the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party wants to filibuster every democratic initiative to try and right the ship, how can Obama's plan actually be criticized? The reality is the Republican House  hasn't allowed any democratic backed legislation geared toward fixing the economy to pass. 

When Obama held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a short while after his first term, he managed to get credit card reform passed and health care reform passed. It should be noted the health care reform he got passed dubbed Obama Care ironically wasn't Obama's plan at all. The plan that got passed was the one put forth by Republican Senator Mitch Mcconnell.

Finally, I find it interesting that Steve Jobs one of the most successful and visionary leaders of our time embraced Presidents Clinton and Obama. He seemingly shunned the Republicans. 

Just because Dems had "control" of congress doesn't mean that all kinds of procedural BS including fillibusters didn't occur...that's the whole point of these tired old rules: to allow the minority to obstruct the normal flow of legislation and debate.

The President doesn't propose legislation, Congress does.

What happened to all the guys on his "team"?  Paging Tom Delay...paging Tom Delay...notice how almost none of them around today, kind of like criminals?

Well, the biggest F-up from an economic standpoint was overturning the uptick rule in 2006.  That single change has caused more financial turmoil and led to more loss of wealth by individuals in this country than any other single move we've seen in 100 years.  The list is long...but the one that everybody has forgotten at this point is the big scam that got away: remember when Bush was going to spend his "political capital" from his re-election and actually proposed allowing individuals to move medicare funds into the public financial markets?  THAT would have been truly awesome for the rich--get everybody to put their "savings" into the stock market, then when the big crash of 2008 goes down, guess who gets to keep all that cash?  Almost pulled that one off...but even though it didn't pass, it gives you excellent insight into the type of "planning for the future" that the GOP has in mind.

Well, let's turn this one around: what has Romney and the republicans proposed that will get the economy moving?  Dropping the marginal tax rate further on the 1% so that the "job creators" can save the day with some trickle down bullshit?  Yawn, where do they come up with this genius?  What's cool about it is that most Americans are so dumb and have so little historical context that this "message" gets reborn every 4 years because most people forget that it hasn't worked ever.  And the rubes fall for it, over and over again.

This is a total red herring.  Who is being crushed by taxation?  The marginal tax rates are at an all time low, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.  Yes, we have an enormous amount of federal debt, but nobody is actually paying for it at the moment.  Plus, borrowing costs are at an all time low--the government is paying under 2% on a ten year T-bill--we should be spending a shitload more right now to stimulate the economy.  Trust me, if your twit gets elected, he'll be borrowing and spending this cheap money like a whore at a Vegas convention.  The GOP has a terrible record of fiscal management dating back to Reagan--there is no indication Romney would have any better grasp on the purse strings.  But remind me again just for the record: what exactly is Romney's tax plan?  Seems like he'll say anything on any given day, from dropping marginal tax rates 20%, then not, then limiting deductions at $17K, then tossing that out, and on and on.  What would this guy do?  Plus nobody is talking about how even if he managed to drop rates by 20%, what will happen to the deficit in the intervening 2-3 years even assuming that the economy does "take off" and the trickle down miracle occurs (since tax revenues won't magically and immediately jump even with the magic tax plan)?  I'll tell you what: deficits will skyrocket from where they are today.  But that will be ok, right??? Cuz you know, its all part of "getting America back to work" by the GOP or some such crap.  But of course if Obama tries to do this, its "socialism."

I think its common knowledge that Romney plans to increase military spending to $2T year, its part of his online "manifesto"...of course, one never knows where this guy stands from one day to the next.

Well, its already a cliche, but he's got Big Bird scheduled for deletion, which is the equivalent of asking a guy with $100 in his pocket to spare a penny for the good of children and the guy saying "no, piss off."  If you are that cold hearted, then what else are you willing to take away from the young, poor and sick?  Yeah, this is a guy I want for president, NOT.

Again, what "insane regulations" are you referring to?  This is a good talking point for the hogs in the GOP, but what can you actually point to that the EPA has done that needs such serious reform?  I have a good friend who is a lawyer for the department of the interior.  I could tell you stories (but they he'd have to kill me) that would make your head spin about the crimes that corporations commit against the environment just in his territory.  I guess that ok as long as its in the name of jobs, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceage 

Well, the biggest F-up from an economic standpoint was overturning the uptick rule in 2006.  That single change has caused more financial turmoil and led to more loss of wealth by individuals in this country than any other single move we've seen in 100 years.

I suppose if you exclude the creation of the Fed and the federal income tax, you might be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceage 

Dropping the marginal tax rate further on the 1% so that the "job creators" can save the day with some trickle down bullshit?

You don't really know how jobs are created (or where the investment capital that helps to create them comes from) do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceage 

The marginal tax rates are at an all time low, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

You are wrong. Of course before 1913 they were less common (typically only war time) and even lower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceage 

Yes, we have an enormous amount of federal debt, but nobody is actually paying for it at the moment.  Plus, borrowing costs are at an all time low--the government is paying under 2% on a ten year T-bill--we should be spending a shitload more right now to stimulate the economy.

Ahhh, we have another Keynesian among us. How delightful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceage 

The marginal tax rates are at an all time low, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

 

You are wrong. Of course before 1913 they were less common (typically only war time) and even lower.

He is wrong, but had he said that since the Great Depression, rates have only been lower in 5 out of the 80 or so years (1988 - 1992) the point would still have been made against the assertion that the US is being crushed by the tax burden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

He is wrong, but had he said that since the Great Depression, rates have only been lower in 5 out of the 80 or so years (1988 - 1992) the point would still have been made against the assertion that the US is being crushed by the tax burden.

I'm not sure how you figure that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

He is wrong, but had he said that since the Great Depression, rates have only been lower in 5 out of the 80 or so years (1988 - 1992) the point would still have been made against the assertion that the US is being crushed by the tax burden.

 

I'm not sure how you figure that.

I'm not sure how you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I'm not sure how you don't.

Okay then.

Haven't read all the posts, but even with Obama's poor performance in the first debate, he's still going to win, assuming he wins Florida.   

My analysis says that Obama will get 304 electoral votes, well above the 270 he needs to win even if every toss-up state goes to Romney.  Electoral-Vote.com claims Obama will get 319, but I'm not convinced of that yet.   

Here's my analysis.  Feel free to poke holes:

States with 18 or more electoral votes (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH) which comprise a total of 209:  I give them all to Obama except for Texas.  (Obviously, if Obama should lose Florida and/or Pennsylvania, that changes the equation.)    That gives Obama 171 and Romney 38.   Many feel Ohio is actually up in the air.    So if Obama doesn't get Ohio, it's Obama 153 to Romney's 56.  

States with 10-16 electoral votes (GA, MI, NC, NJ, VA, WA, AZ, IN, MA, TN, MD, MN, MO, WI) which comprises 170:    Obama gets 83:  MI, NJ, WA, MA, MD, MN and WI.   Romney definitely gets 59.   NC and VA are undecided.     If Romney wins those, it's Obama 83 and Romney 87.  If Obama wins both, it's Obama 111, Romney 59.) 

States with 9 or fewer electoral votes (all the rest) which comprises 161:   Obama gets 50 (CT, OR, NV, NM, HI, ME, NH, RI, DC, DE, VT).   Romney gets all the rest with the possible exceptions of Colorado and Iowa (15).  If Romney wins both those states, that would add 109 to his total.

Romney has to win both Pennsylvania and Ohio (if he doesn't win Florida) AND with at least two of the four "undecided" states to win.   That's a tall order.   Once again, Florida is the key to the election.     

Totals:

Obama (pretty definite): 304

Romney (definite): 191

Undecided: 43 (NC, VA, CO, IA)

If Obama loses Ohio, he still wins, even if Romney gets all the undecided votes:

Obama (pretty definite): 286

Romney (definite): 209

Undecided: 43 (NC, VA, CO, IA)

If Obama wins Florida, but loses PA and OH, it's a tossup.   Either candidate would need more than half of the undecided votes:

Obama (pretty definite): 248

Romney (definite): 247

Undecided: 43 (NC, VA, CO, IA)

From the party that sponsors Good ol' Mitt :

Kind of gives you a warm feeling for Romney and his party doesn't it? I wonder if the Deer behind him buy this?

Ps. It could explain a big reason why nothing gets done in congress. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14203607-video-shows-scientist-in-congress-saying-evolution-is-from-pit-of-hell?lite

Gosh, arguments based on data from Rasmussen are SO very convincing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoetmb 

Haven't read all the posts, but even with Obama's poor performance in the first debate, he's still going to win, assuming he wins Florida.   

 

My analysis says that Obama will get 304 electoral votes, well above the 270 he needs to win even if every toss-up state goes to Romney.  Electoral-Vote.com claims Obama will get 319, but I'm not convinced of that yet.   

 

Here's my analysis.  Feel free to poke holes:

States with 18 or more electoral votes (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH) which comprise a total of 209:  I give them all to Obama except for Texas.  (Obviously, if Obama should lose Florida and/or Pennsylvania, that changes the equation.)    That gives Obama 171 and Romney 38.   Many feel Ohio is actually up in the air.    So if Obama doesn't get Ohio, it's Obama 153 to Romney's 56.  

 

States with 10-16 electoral votes (GA, MI, NC, NJ, VA, WA, AZ, IN, MA, TN, MD, MN, MO, WI) which comprises 170:    Obama gets 83:  MI, NJ, WA, MA, MD, MN and WI.   Romney definitely gets 59.   NC and VA are undecided.     If Romney wins those, it's Obama 83 and Romney 87.  If Obama wins both, it's Obama 111, Romney 59.) 

 

States with 9 or fewer electoral votes (all the rest) which comprises 161:   Obama gets 50 (CT, OR, NV, NM, HI, ME, NH, RI, DC, DE, VT).   Romney gets all the rest with the possible exceptions of Colorado and Iowa (15).  If Romney wins both those states, that would add 109 to his total.

 

Romney has to win both Pennsylvania and Ohio (if he doesn't win Florida) AND with at least two of the four "undecided" states to win.   That's a tall order.   Once again, Florida is the key to the election.     

 

Totals:

Obama (pretty definite): 304

Romney (definite): 191

Undecided: 43 (NC, VA, CO, IA)

 

If Obama loses Ohio, he still wins, even if Romney gets all the undecided votes:

 

Obama (pretty definite): 286

Romney (definite): 209

Undecided: 43 (NC, VA, CO, IA)

 

If Obama wins Florida, but loses PA and OH, it's a tossup.   Either candidate would need more than half of the undecided votes:

 

Obama (pretty definite): 248

Romney (definite): 247

Undecided: 43 (NC, VA, CO, IA)

And as to Florida we know how he's pissed off the elderly and the retirement crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

And as to Florida we know how he's pissed off the elderly and the retirement crowd.

Do we "know" this? How do we "know" this exactly? Is Florida only comprised of "the elderly and the retirement crowd?"

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

And as to Florida we know how he's pissed off the elderly and the retirement crowd.

 

Do we "know" this? How do we "know" this exactly? Is Florida only comprised of "the elderly and the retirement crowd?"

 

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Because of what he wants to do to Medicare ( yes I know what he's said but he's already proven you can't believe him since his retraction of the 47 % statement ). Also because some of the elderly and retired are part of that 47 %! Sheesh! Yourself.

Lot's of retirees live in Florida. And it's not just them : http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/04/3034352/poll-hispanics-in-florida-favor.html

Sorry to rain on your parade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

From the party that sponsors Good ol' Mitt :

 

 

Kind of gives you a warm feeling for Romney and his party doesn't it? I wonder if the Deer behind him buy this?

 

Ps. It could explain a big reason why nothing gets done in congress. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14203607-video-shows-scientist-in-congress-saying-evolution-is-from-pit-of-hell?lite

Wow.

And there is more from other members of the GOP:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ark-gop-calls-candidates-statements-offensive-17414343#.UHDGJrRK5JM

Arkansas.  

- - - - -

Is Mittens going to distance himself from these delightful representatives of his party?

To answer my question: he'll probably say those aren't the words he would have used, it wasn't elegantly put, then deny it, then...

- - - - -

Obama is holding the slight lead he retained even after the debate bounce for Mittens (the reason for which I can't comprehend unless people only go for appearance over substance).  So, Mittens got a bounce, not a change.

Obama also brought in a ton of cash, with 98% being in donations of $250 or less, averaging $53, which means lots of people who can't afford more are interested enough to donate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/06/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSBRE89509B20121006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Because of what he wants to do to Medicare ( yes I know what he's said but he's already proven you can't believe him since his retraction of the 47 % statement ). Also because some of the elderly and retired are part of that 47 %! Sheesh! Yourself.

 

Lot's of retirees live in Florida. And it's not just them : http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/04/3034352/poll-hispanics-in-florida-favor.html

 

Sorry to rain on your parade.

You didn't rain on anything, you simply exposed the fallaciousness of your statement which basically goes like this:

a) Mitt Romney wants to do something "bad" (assumption without proof) to Medicare (that won't affect those who are currently elderly or retired).

b) The elderly or retired are now pissed at him.

Or...

a) Mitt Romney wants to do something "bad" (assumption without proof) to Medicare (that won't affect those who are currently elderly or retired).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceage 
   

 

 

Just because Dems had "control" of congress doesn't mean that all kinds of procedural BS including fillibusters didn't occur...that's the whole point of these tired old rules: to allow the minority to obstruct the normal flow of legislation and debate.

 

You seem to have little faith in our founding fathers and their desire for it to be difficult to pass legislation.  This is by design, not just because the rules are outdated.

Actually, anyone can propose legislation, even you.  All you have to do is right a bill and get a congressman or senator to sponsor the bill to introduce it.  In fact, this is really the way the majority of legislation gets written.  You don't think that congressmen and senators actually write all of this legislation themselves do you?  The sad part of this is that you seem to think that the President doesn't have enough pull within his own party to get legislation that he wants sponsored in Congress.

Well, I have to admit that I don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about by this "uptick rule"?  As to the evil rich getting all of the "savings" when everyone put their money into the market...  The rich always lose WAY more then the rest of us when the market tanks.  They obviously have way more to lose, and yes it hits us in the lower income brackets harder in a sense but only if you pull out while the market is down.  For those that are living on investments in the stock market, they are playing with fire and asking to get burned.  If you are retired and living off investment income, that is the time to move your investments away from the market and into more stable forms of investment.

Personally, I'm not in the 1%, but a 20% tax cut for me sounds pretty dang awesome.  You seem to omit (I'm sure this was purely accidental) that the 20% tax cut doesn't hit just the upper 1% but it's an across the board tax cut.  The "historical context" for this is the simple fact that Reagan turned around the Carter recession MUCH more rapidly with tax cuts, and this also resulted in an increase in revenue to the Fed.  I'm not sure how this is exactly an example of tax cuts spurring economic growth being a myth, but I guess looking at that history makes me a rube who's just falling for it.

Hmm...  How long ago did Obama close Gitmo?  How long has unemployment been under 6% now?  How about that deficit being cut in half by the end of his first term?  You talk about Romney as if he's the only politician to make promises that he may or may not be able to keep.  Could it be that Romney's tax plan is evolving?  We can't have that, can we?  Obama has never "evolved" on anything like maybe, gay marriage...

Romney has been saying for a long time now that he is for a 20% across the board tax cut with the elimination of some loop holes.  He's also said repeatedly that he is going to keep the tax cuts deficit neutral (I hope he can pull of that part).  The $17k on deductions is fairly new to me, but this doesn't seem out of line and will absolutely hit the high income earners more than the lower tiers so you should be happy with this.  And yes, giving businesses some assurance of what the tax structure will look like for the next 4 years and repealing ObamaCare will definitely help businesses have confidence to start hiring again.

I suppose that we should simply keep paying for anything and everything that makes someone feel good, or helps out some disaffected group regardless of our ability as a country to pay for it?  This is not a matter of being cold hearted.  This is a matter of financial ability to pay for stuff.  We make choices in our house as to what we are going to do in terms of what we can afford.  I would love to get a CanAm Spider, but this is totally not in the budget.  Unlike the Fed, I can't simply print more money to buy it.  I'm also not willing to burden myself with financing a $15k toy.  I believe that the vast majority of PBS financing comes from individual contributions, though I admittedly could be wrong on this.  Beyond this, do we really need to fund the NEA so they can give grants to artists who put a cross in a jar of urine and claim it to be art?  I'm sure there are tons of other government programs that could be cut back or eliminated entirely.

What insane regulations you ask???  How about a $15 million dollar highway construction project in Tx currently on hold because of a rare spider found in a bridge that is scheduled for renovation?  How about the green fiasco in the Mojave Desert where what were initially 38 tortoises caused the entire solar power project to be put on hold while over $56 million has been spent to relocate these tortoises?  How about a couple years ago in S. Ca when farmers were denied irrigation water because of some endangered fish living in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta and water pumping was limited?  There are plenty of examples out there for excessive EPA regulations.  If you really care that much about the environment, you should stop producing CO2 such as you do every minute of every day you live.  CO2 is now a pollutant to be regulated.

When corporations commit actual crimes pertaining to the environment they should be punished, and harshly.  Dumping of toxic wastes, legitimate issues of pollution, etc. should absolutely be regulated and prosecuted when offenses are discovered.  Furthermore, the penalties should be sufficient to ensure that companies are effectively discouraged, but some of the regulations and lawsuits brought by the EPA are simply excessive.

One last example...  The Alaska oil pipeline.  A long time ago a huge argument was made that the pipeline would be detrimental to various species in the area such as the caribou.  Studies conducted since have shown no negative impact to the caribou and in fact the 2 herds that are directly impacted by the pipeline have had significant growth in the years since the pipeline was built.  Furthermore, the pipeline has a smaller environmental footprint than other transport methods such as trucker or oil tankers.  Need I mention the Exxon Valdez

Don't forget the ObamaCare mandate to small business to report transactions over $500 on a 1099.

Since when is lying your ass off but sounding really confident about it winning?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Since when is lying your ass off but sounding really confident about it winning?

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Since when is lying your ass off but sounding really confident about it winning?

It does show a very sad reality of America... where the media and the people will go for this crap.

Didn't his staff reverse a couple of the claims he made the very next day?

Obama's plan. I'm going to spend another $4-5 trillion and continue to fail in all manner of planning, budget and policy but if you try to point that out then you hate Big Bird.

Speaking of Big Bird, why has no one in the media bothered to ask why a company that made over $50 million in licensing fees alone last year needs a government subsidy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

 

 

It does show a very sad reality of America... where the media and the people will go for this crap.

 

Didn't his staff reverse a couple of the claims he made the very next day?

OK.  Shoot.  Please provide details of exactly what he lied about.  What exactly did his staff retract the next day? 

Ah yes, false equivalence from the anarchist wing of PO.

Ah yes, the one note concerto from the Obamaton wing of PO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Ah yes, false equivalence from the anarchist wing of PO.

Politicians don't lie with confidence to get elected? Really?

Obama lied his ass off in 2008. Him and his team did and said whatever it took to win.

Now that Obama has met his intellectual superior, the liberals are all whining about it.

Ryan bans video/audio recordings at event.  Will he request the same at the debate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/paul-ryan-fundraiser_n_1951515.html

- - - - -

So easy.  Mittens' staff "clarifies" his comments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/romney-2012-presidential-debate_n_1940184.html?utm_hp_ref=presidential-debates

"I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That's part of my health care plan," Romney said.

But following the debate, top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom contradicted that claim when pressed on the issue by Talking Points Memo reporter Evan-McMorris-Santoro."