SarasotaSabre

True, to a degree - depends on whether the spending is on discretionary or non-discretionary spending....also whether the goods/services purchased are acquired via cash or credit card, that latter being the ennabler that often spurs spending when it should probably be avoided.

interesting take on last night's proceedings: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/ I commend you on your evaluation, especially the bolded parts which were very objectively stated; well-done wow - I really hope this is not going on; scary stuff out there. Hope it's not just FUD being spread on the Web. http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

yours is a fair point.. I do think however as the debate regressed into a street fight, both trampled on Crowley as far as time allotted and sequence/structure. Definitely not an example of Roberts' Rules of Order.....))

Along the line of the bolded question, I thought this morning how are the moderators vetted and selected? I truly wish there was a nonpartisan, objective candidate to serve this role. On top of that, was Candy the right moderator for the town hall format? Last night turned into a street fight at times and she got walked on by both Obama & Romney.

THIS - is the assessment I agree with the most. I think Obama came back, as expected, and was more assertive. I'd call the debate a draw, however.

???

I got it, thanks. My bad.

Great; another categorical, unfounded opinion - way to elevate the conversation...and I understand emoticons just fine despite your "observation". Looked to me HopefulFuture meant exactly what he wrote -.

Really, "the GOP 'are' evil?" Not to sound condescending, but is that nothing but a stereotypical, gross overexaggeration. I have followed this topic for the exchange of ideas & opinions backed up by facts. A statement like yours just sounds like a playground taunt directed at an entire bloc/party with no distinction among individuals within that bloc/party. It just does no good to paint with as broad of a brush as you have done with your statement.

Agreed - fully, that both sides massage the numbers to their advantage. To me the biggest variable is those who have stopped looking and those who work part-time; for example, are those who work 10 hours a week babysitting being counted as fully employed? Regarding the bolded part, exaggerate a little much? I laughed but I really have no idea what you are talking about..... :blink:

Re: the bolded part, what an excellent point; I never thought of it that way before.

Ok, care to clarify what the supposed actual number is then? I'm all ears. I'm not Mitt and my intent was not to put forth a dishonest number.

I am in the income/tax bracket whereby Obama has already told me he does not have my best interests at heart. I am not a millionaire but Obama considers me "wealthy" and capable of "paying my fair share". That said, I'd rather vote for someone who understands business & job creation. There are scores of companies & small business owners who are literally keeping their money in their pockets, not hiring, and waiting to see who gets elected (hoping it's Romney so they can start investing capital again with some degree of certainty & predictability in the business world). There are about 23 million "hard-working Americans" who aren't working right now. I'd be curious if they still back Obama or if they'd feel different if they got a good job after Romney got elected.

I don't know, I cannot think for either of you. I do know that I am done with this topic for today. That is your opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up. Just another attempt to villainize the other side.

I am not upset about it, and I do think it a fair topic to be asked by the moderator. That was not the purpose of my post. I disagree, I don't think it will swing that far-right. Just my humble opinion.

So you tell me to "go f**k myself" and that's the best you've got, to sugarcoat your steaming pile of crap? Spinning my self-defense as "nonsense"? Time to up the meds for the passive/aggressive disorder.

OK, you stay classy there, Internet tough-guy. Yes, said it was uncalled for to ask me "what the hell I was talking about":. You can agree to disagree with me, but I thought your language was over the top...and now this ??.........Go f*ck yourself. Very intellectual of you. I asked this question: "Are you naive enough to think this wasn't a planted question?" ...........and are you that spun up about a benign question. And I asked if you were naive - I DID NOT CALL YOU NAIVE. If you are that thin-skinned maybe you need to "socialize" elsewhere. Wow.

In hindsight, I concede I did not do an effective job at positioning my opinion on the Biden lie (....re: Obama administration’s failure to create an accommodation for religious organizations that self-insure seven months after promising it would.) I lumped this in with the Ryan defense of religious liberty approach. Again, not my intent to move the goalposts but I can see how it would read that it was. In all candor, I was out running errands for my wife & I was reading & replying on the fly in a hasty fashion from my phone,,,,not the best, most thoughful way to engage on this topic. There - I fell on the sword; I hope those of you who I have disappointed today will continue to engage me, as I consider myself to be a thoughtful and well-reasoned guy ...(at least most of the time.) - - :doh:

Maybe I don't feel like going through a painstaking explanation of something I already explained because I don't want to come off as belittling or condescending to anyone. Oh well, I tried.

The pot callling the kettle black. Nice try. Another poor attempt at comprehension of my post. I have already explained the thought process of my opinion, so it's obvious you don't get it or don't want to.

Reread my post. I agreed with you that Ryan brought up the defense of liberty issue earlier in the debate. I then brought up the Biden lie not to move the goalposts but to illustrate a contrast and a contradiction in the debate. Ryan's defense of religious liberty IMHO is a separate track from the moderator SPECIFICALLY asking about views on abortion & catholicism Maybe you should sharpen your reading/comprehension skills. Too bad. I used to enjoy our discussion.

Not moving the goalposts at all. Just stating a fact according to what actually happened in the debate. If Ryan can be taken to task on this thread for bringing up 1st amendment religious liberty issues, I certainly think it's worth that as a practicing Catholic, Biden blatatantly lied about the HHS issue. But if you want to call it moving goalposts, have at it. I have noticed that's a popular retort when someone goes against the majority Left on this board.

uncalled for. You are not worth responding to. In the context of the debate and how religion would never be foisted upon Obama in a debate, I thought I raised a fair question. Enough with the hostility. Have a great day. Yes, then Biden blatantly lied about it and was rebuked the next day by the U.S. Council of Bishops

you are opining as if Ryan offered to make it a debate topic when in point of fact Raddatz made it (Catholicism) a hot potato. When will the next moderator ask Obama how growing up Islam shaped his worldview and why he chose to be a member of a virulently racist, anti-Semite, anti-American Trinity United Church of Christ ?..........ummmm, never.

who asked the question about Catholicism, public policy, & abortion? Raddatz. Not a even a centrist moderator. Are you naive enough to think this wasn't a planted question?......c'mon now, really?