Anonymous wrote:PP here, I am a conservative and cannot stand Sarah Palin. I am not responsible for her selection as VP candidate, nor are the vast majority of Republicans.

Any other slams you'd like to try?

I am a Democrat and I was not responsible for Joe Biden's selection as VP candidate. Doesn't mean I'm not voting for the President. Are you honestly saying as a self-proclaimed conservative that you DIDN'T vote for McCain in '08 because he had a stupid VP pick?

Any other lame comebacks YOU'D like to try? Do try to keep up and read between the lines.

PP here, I am a conservative and cannot stand Sarah Palin. I am not responsible for her selection as VP candidate, nor are the vast majority of Republicans.

Any other slams you'd like to try?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Romney has a chronic case of foot in mouth disease and can't be trusted with the highest office in the land.

But you're okay with Biden, who's just one step away?

I don't vote for the VP. And you people are one to talk after putting that airhead caribou Barbie up for #2. As a party you've forfeited the right to criticize.

Anonymous wrote: Romney has a chronic case of foot in mouth disease and can't be trusted with the highest office in the land.

But you're okay with Biden, who's just one step away?

OP, can you articulate exactly how and when you feel that there is too much government in your life? Is this purely about taxes for you? I'm really asking here.

Anonymous wrote:I was undecided although I lean more on the Republican side. Despite this I still voted for Obama and have decided to vote again for him. The past few weeks has made me realize that Mitt Romney is in no position to represent the country as a whole. He is way out of touch with reality.

I hope there are enough of you out there who realize this, and who know that not every Democrat is simply a victim of a cult of personality. Most of us educate ourselves and vote based on whose policy prescriptions and demeanor on the foreign stage make more sense. Romney has a chronic case of foot in mouth disease and can't be trusted with the highest office in the land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not anymore. The 47% stat put me firmly in Romney's camp. Had no idea it was that high.

Yeah, even though it was REAGAN signing the earned income tax credit bill that helped prop the number up that high. God forbid our grandparents on medicare, college students on loans, people earning less than 20K, Iraq war veterans going to the V.A. get away without paying federal income taxes. So what if they also pay payroll taxes, sales tax (regressive), and different forms of local taxes. CORPORATE WELFARE ONLY!

You can dislike it but I answered honestly.

Honestly heartless and misinformed. Congrats!

Anonymous wrote:Not anymore. The 47% stat put me firmly in Romney's camp. Had no idea it was that high.

Well then you are misinformed. A good chunk of those 47% are the elderly who no longer have an earned income and therefore pay no income or payroll taxes. The rest are desperately poor or marginally middle class. Most of them work very hard and pay plenty of taxes, including payroll and property taxes. What is your suggestion, oh heartless one? I have news for you, increasing taxes on the poor will damage the economy by even further limiting their ability to participate in it. And lowering taxes on the rich is not going to create good jobs for those people - education and simple demand will. I've yet to meet a rich person who simply created a good paying job out of selfless charity. They create jobs because they need more workers to fill demand. Econ 101 - I suggest you go take a class.

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Deciding whether it'll be better for Hillary in 2016 to have O or Mittens in the White House. What do you think?

Hillary will be 70 by then.
The best thing for the COUNTRY (not anyone's special interests) is to have Mitt (not Mittens, don't be so childish) as our next president.

Anonymous wrote:I am. I'm registered as a Dem but have voted Republican in the past. I'm socially liberal - pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. I'm also for the death penalty, believe in a strong and active military, and think the government is too involved in people's day-to-day lives.

I'm frustrated with the lack of change and the excuses being made by team Obama, but some of Romney's comments disgust me (though my conservative husband claims they're taken out of context.)

Those undecided, how are you feeling?

How exactly do you think the government is too involved in people's day to day lives? As a woman, do you really think the party of transvaginal ultrasounds, forcing raped women to give birth to their rapist's babies, rewriting hospital building regulations to close women's clinics, trying to force the issue of Christian prayer in public schools, etc are going to be LESS involved in our daily lives? Hint: the answer is a resounding NO. If you are pro-choice and care at all about the social compact, the decision is really not difficult. Vote for the President, case closed.

Yes.

Deciding whether it'll be better for Hillary in 2016 to have O or Mittens in the White House. What do you think?

Our sitting president kept his campaigning appointment in Vegas the day we learned our ambassador in Libya was killed, along with three other Americans.

He is doing Letterman and partying with Jay Z and Beyonce.

He is an embarassment. If I were the ambassador's wife I would be calling him out on all this. There was a terrorist attack on our embassy and others of ours are being attacked, and so on.

I cannot willingly put this shameless clown in office again.

I was undecided although I lean more on the Republican side. Despite this I still voted for Obama and have decided to vote again for him. The past few weeks has made me realize that Mitt Romney is in no position to represent the country as a whole. He is way out of touch with reality.

Anonymous wrote:Umm - the 47% includes retirees and children, people who don't work and therefore pay no income tax, as well as the working poor and unemployed.

I wish I had the numbers of how much of the population those first two groups make up on their own so we could then talk about the others more intelligently. Even conservatives (read Peggy Noonan's WSJ column yesterday) think that number is a joke.

Here is a great explanation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/?hpid=z2

Briefly, of the 47% that don't pay federal income taxes:

1) 28.3% pay payroll taxes. They actually pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney;
2) 10.3% are elderly;
3) 6.9% are non-elderly whose income is less than $20,000
4) that leaves < 1% "others"

Umm - the 47% includes retirees and children, people who don't work and therefore pay no income tax, as well as the working poor and unemployed.

I wish I had the numbers of how much of the population those first two groups make up on their own so we could then talk about the others more intelligently. Even conservatives (read Peggy Noonan's WSJ column yesterday) think that number is a joke.